firm-marketinterface and performance

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

ReviewEnvironmental orientation, sustainable behaviour at the firm-marketinterface and performanceTamara KeszeyCorvinus University of Budapest, Hungary, 1093, Budapest, Fov } am t er 8, Hungarya r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 26 February 2019Received in revised form17 September 2019Accepted 20 September 2019Available online 20 September 2019Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir KlemesKeywords:Sustainable behaviour of the firmEnvironmental orientationFirm performanceEnvironmental contingenciesEnvironmental marketinga b s t r a c tThis study aims to enrich sustainability research and practice by being the first study to systematicallyreview empirical studies from the past ten years on how corporate-level environmental orientationinfluences environmental marketing and firm performance and improves the understanding of the rolesof environmental contingencies. A review of the extant literature describes how the investigation of thisfield has evolved over the past ten years, provides a managerially relevant meta-framework of variablesbased on previous studies and suggests areas for future research. Structural equation modelling of crosssectional survey data from 296 firms in Hungary shows that the environmental orientation of the firm isan important driver of environmental marketing, which in turn, has a weak, positive effect on performance. Environmental contingencies have more influence on how firms profit from environmentalmarketing initiatives than on how firm-level environmental attitudes and visions translate into behaviour. Stringent environmental regulations and the environmental orientation of competitors reinforce theprofit outcomes of environmental marketing, while the environmental norms of customers and thenatural environment do not influence this effect. This study concludes with important sustainabilityimplications for policy makers and managers.© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Contents1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Systematic review of the extant literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1. Methodological approach to systematic review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1.1. Overview of environmental orientation and marketing literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.2. Meta-framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.3. Research gap that this study aims to fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. Model and hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1. Main hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2. Moderating hypotheses and control variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2.1. Customer and competitor environmental orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2.2. Legal environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2.3. Natural environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.4. Control variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. Methodology of empirical study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.1. Process of data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2. Testing of data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1. Testing of measurement instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.2. Testing of hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
E-mailcorvinus.hu.
addresses:
[email protected], [email protected] lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Cleaner Productionjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcleprohttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.1185240959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 1185246. Discussion and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.1. Theoretical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.2. Policy and managerial implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117. Limitations and directions for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Measurement constructs and scale items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131. IntroductionAs a result of growing concern about the sustainability of thenatural environment, green issues have become increasinglyimportant to corporate decision makers. This growing importanceof environmental orientation is also echoed by these issues beingranked first among 30 major risks that the world is facing by bothimpact and likelihood, according to the World Economic Forum’s1,000 business, policy and thought leaders (Ip, 2019). Firms tend torecognize that their activities have impacts on the environment andthat there is a need to minimize this impact; however, recognitionmight not automatically translate into concrete initiatives. Further,environmental contingencies, such as regulations, or customers’preferences for green products can also influence the degree towhich environmental orientation culminates in cleaner production.The concept of cleaner production refers to the broad initiativesaiming to reduce the production of waste and to increase efficiencyin the use of energy, water, resources, and human capital. This studyinvestigates environmental marketing, which is an integral part ofthe concept of cleaner production. Environmental marketing captures efforts (i.e., waste reduction and efficiency increases) at thelevel of the firm, specifically focusing on sustainability initiatives atthe firm-market interface. Firms engage in environmental marketing, for instance, by developing and launching green positionedbrands on the market, using environmental considerations in distribution and reverse logistics system, employing green argumentsin advertising and promotion, or considering environmental aspects in price policies (Fraj-Andres et al., 2009 ). Recent companyexamples include the Swedish retail giant IKEA’s intention toeliminate all single-use plastic products from its home furnishingrange globally by January 1, 2020 (IKEA, 2018), or Adidas’ recentintroduction of first-ever golf shoes made from upcycled plasticwaste intercepted from beaches and coastal communities (Adidas,2019).Having accepted the growing environmental concerns of managers and acknowledging firm-level environmental marketinginitiatives, this study aims to enrich the broader domain of cleanerproduction theory and practice by investigating the followingresearch questions.⁃ RQ1: What is the effect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing and subsequently on firm performance?⁃ RQ2: Are these effects contingent on the micro- and macrobusiness environment of the firm?The findings from this study offer two key contributions to theextant literature. First, this study is the first to provide a systematicoverview of empirical, survey-based studies of environmentalorientation and marketing over the past ten years. Recently, anumber of cutting-edge literature reviews were published in thedomain of green and environmental marketing issues. For example,Groening et al. (2018) provided an overview of individual-levelconsumer behaviour theories in green marketing, Dangelico andVocalelli (2017) synthesized the evolution of conceptual approaches of corporate green marketing, and Thu et al. (2018)reviewed firm-level environmental innovativeness, to mentiononly a few. Despite the above progress in summarizing extantknowledge, there remains a lack of systematic reviews in the extantliterature of an environmental orientation’s effects on environmental marketing and firm performance.Notwithstanding the rich and valuable findings in the broaderdomain of firm-level environmental marketing, extant literaturereviews are often criticized for not including an in-depth analysis ofthe content of the reviewed studies and instead focusing on descriptions of the body of literature. As stated by Dangelico andVocalelli (2017), “We believe that it would be very useful to […]provide a framework to guide managers and identify futureresearch directions for the topic”. To address these aforementionedissues, this study aims to provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge, describe existing gaps,outline directions for future research and provide a metaframework that reconciles past research.Second, we shed further light on the importance of moderatorvariables related to the business environment. Moderator variablesare factors that explain the differential effects of the independentvariable on the dependent variable by providing insight into theconditions under which this effect might vary depending on thevalue of the moderator variable. Lately, scholars have started torecognize the importance of these variables in the context of firmlevel environmental marketing issues. For example, You et al.(2019) showed, in their recent study, that the influences of thefiscal and political promotion system negatively moderate(dampen) the positive effect of environmental regulation on ecoinnovation in China. Jiang et al. (2018) also emphasized theimportance of moderator variables, showing that the positive effectof green entrepreneurial orientation on the environmental andfinancial performance of eco-friendly products and processes ispositively moderated (strengthened) by knowledge transfer andintegration; however, it is not significantly moderated by greentechnology dynamism.These studies stress that, despite moderator variables related tothe external environment advancing the understanding of theperformance implications of environmental orientation, they are“rarely taken into consideration” (Jiang et al., 2018). Further, moststudies have focused on a limited subset (i.e., typically one or two)of moderator variables; hence, understanding of why certain typesof variables have different moderating effects than others remainpoor. This study aims to identify inconsistencies in the prior resultsand proposes a theoretical perspective in the domain of theinvestigation of moderator variables in this field. We investigatefour moderator variables. To provide a comprehensive view, two ofthese moderators, customer and competitor environmental orientation, belong to the micro-level business contingency, while thelegal and natural environment belong to the macro-level businesscontingency. We offer a typology that could serve as an explanationfor the different moderating effects.2 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Thefollowing section presents a systematic review of the extant literature, followed by the model and research hypotheses in sectionthree. Next, the study’s research methods and key findings arepresented. The article concludes with a discussion of the study’stheoretical contributions, policy and managerial implications,limitations, and suggestions for future research.2. Systematic review of the extant literature2.1. Methodological approach to systematic reviewTo provide a sound background for our study, we conducted asystematic review of empirical research on the effect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing published between 2008 and 2018. The methodological approach (Fig. 1)consisted of three stages and followed the well-establishedguidelines of systematic literature reviews (Tranfield et al., 2003).The first stage aimed to identify relevant journals and potentially relevant papers published between 2008 and 2018. To answerthe key question of our literature review – “What is the effect ofenvironmental orientation on environmental marketing and subsequently on firm performance?” – we conducted systematicresearch for the strings “environmental orientation”, “environmental marketing” and “questionnaire”. Our search strategyincluded studies that contain any of these words in the title, abstract or anywhere in the main body of the study, tables, figures orappendices. Further, we performed a second round of searches(indicated as search strategy II in Fig. 1) specifically focusing onpapers published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. This journal isconsidered a core platform for issues related to environmentalorientation and environmental marketing, which are also echoedby the subject areas (corporate sustainability and corporate socialresponsibility/environmental management systems/strategiccorporate sustainability), the fierce ongoing academic debate inthis domain and a number of relevant literature reviews (e.g.,Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). In the case of this journal, we werelooking for studies that contain the words “environmental marketing”. These two searches resulted into a total of 225 (169 and 56,respectively) potentially relevant studies.The second phase aimed to examine the relevant identificationand preliminary coding of articles. To provide a solid platform forrelevancy identification, we established detailed criteria for inclusion. Empirical studies tested by means of a survey (questionnaire)were included if published in highly ranked academic journals (Q1and Q2 according to the Scimago Journal Rank, https://www.scimagojr.com/) between 2008 and 2018. We excluded literaturereviews and studies that were conceptual or qualitative in nature orthat focused on individual customers (and not on organizations).We developed a detailed scheme for relevant papers, by which wecoded every relevant paper (n ¼ 29). This coding scheme was thedata repository from which subsequent analysis emerged; hence,the content was directly linked to the formulated review questionand the planned assessment of the incorporated studies. In thecoding scheme, we recorded the theoretical positioning of therelevant papers, the model configuration (antecedents, moderators,mediators, and performance effects), the methodological approach(type of data, country of origin, industry context, key informant(data collected from), sample size, analytical method), and the results and key insights.As part of Phase III of our systematic literature review, weanalysed relevant papers by providing a brief description of thisbody of literature, creating a meta-framework of antecedents andperformance effects of environmental marketing and identifyinggaps in this body of literature.Fig. 1. Methodological approach of literature review.T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 32.1.1. Overview of environmental orientation and marketingliteratureAn overview of the survey-based empirical body of literature onenvironmental orientation and marketing (Table 1) reveals that thenumber of studies in this domain is growing, signalling continuousand growing academic interest. While studies in the first periodaimed at understanding the link between environmental orientation and marketing, studies in the second period have begun tomore intensively address the extent to which moderating variablesaffect these links. The sophistication of the topic is also indicated byour finding studies based on small sample sizes in the first period,with the second period showing a clear shift towards large samplesizes. Regarding the geographic dispersion of articles, we foundthat, while Europe is still in focus, the number of articles investigating the phenomenon in Asia (China especially) increased in thesecond period. With respect to the analytical method, SEM (structural equation modelling) and regression are the most widely usedapproaches, while other methods (reporting cluster analysis, correlations as part of data analysis) are disappearing.2.1.2. Meta-frameworkWe present the findings in a meta-framework format (Fig. 2).Meta-frameworks are visual syntheses of prior studies in onemodel to provide an overview of the variables included prior toempirical studies and regarded as relevant for a literature review.Meta-frameworks, in addition to their academic value, areconsidered to be highly relevant from a managerial perspective(Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). Since most of the studies in ourreview tested hypotheses between variables, we follow this logicand distinguish between the antecedents (variables that logicallyprecede and influence another variable) and performance consequences of environmental marketing, and we also provide anoverview of variables considered moderators in former studies.The sub-categories of the antecedents and moderators (labelledA1-3 and M1-3, respectively) emerged as a result of the iterativegrouping of variables investigated in prior studies, listed by meansof bullet points. This iterative grouping approach is often used tocreate meta-frameworks (e.g., Arli et al., 2018). The approach aimsto provide meaningful categories for the group of variables regarded as conceptually similar and hence that can be assigned to samegroup. The approach is iterative in nature since these categories areoften not pre-defined and are determined as a result of the analysis.The aim of the approach is to create meaningful categories ortaxonomies that fit the variables investigated in prior studies andhence that could be used as the building blocks for a metaframework.Fig. 2 presents the resulting meta-framework. Our searchstrategy using search terms, environmental orientation and environmental marketing across the whole texts of prior articlesenabled the capturing of the phenomenon in a holistic manner andidentified all of the relevant variables in this body of literature onfirm-level environmental marketing and sustainable behaviour atthe firm-market interface. As Fig. 2 shows, environmental marketing is conceptualized in a diverse manner. Studies in thisdomain, in addition to the narrowly defined environmental marketing (Fraj et al., 2011; Leonidou, L.C. et al., 2013b), also focus oneco-friendly export marketing strategy (Leonidou, L.C. et al., 2013a),green business strategy (Leonidou et al., 2017), and environmentalmanagement systems (Amores-Salvado et al., 2015 ). Other studiesdiscuss the broader theme of environmental marketing and sustainable behaviour at the firm-market interface by examiningproactive environmental strategies (Chan and Ma, 2016), greenmarketing mix programs (Chan et al., 2012; Fraj-Andres et al., 2009 )or environmental and green product innovation (Amores-Salvadoet al., 2014; Chan et al., 2016).A number of papers specifically examined the effect of environmental orientation (e.g., Papadas et al., 2019); however, similarto environmental marketing, a widespread conceptualization isincluded in the literature. Besides environmental orientation of thefirm e as outlined in the literature (Fig. 2, A1) e shared vision (e.g.,Leonidou, L.C. et al., 2013a), CEO environmental beliefs, leadership,environmental concerns (e.g., Kim and Stepchenkova, 2018), internal green marketing orientation (Papadas et al., 2019), andmarket orientation (Chen et al., 2015) also play important roles inenvironmental marketing.Studies reveal thatdin addition to the environmental orientation of the firmdresources, capabilities, and processes (Fig. 2., A2)influence environmental marketing. Former studies focused onorganizational, green export-related and slack resources (e.g.,Leonidou et al., 2017), organizational capabilities, such as marketand technology sensing (e.g., Chan and Ma, 2016), and crossfunctional coordination (Leonidou, L.C. et al., 2013a). Two studiesexamined the direct impact of the business environment (i.e., thepressure of the stakeholders and regulations) on environmentalmarketing (Chan et al., 2016; Papadas et al., 2019).This body of literature depicts positive performanceTable 1Overview of body of literature.Period2008e2012 2013e2018
Number of studiesNumber of studies investigating moderatora variables
124
1713
Number of studies according to the sample size
150
2

151e250
5
11
251
5
16
Number of studies according to geographical dispersion
Europe
8
8
Asia
3
8
Other (US, Australia)
1
1
Number of studies according to the analytical method
SEMbRegressionOther (cluster analysis, correlations, path analysis)
813
13c5c0
a Moderator variables are factors that explain the differential effects of an independent variable on dependent variable.b Structural Equation Modelling.c The sum of studies in these categories (18) do not equal with the sum of all studies in 2013e2018 (17) because one study used bothhierarchical regression and SEM.4 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524consequences of environmental marketing and, more broadly,environmental firm-level behaviour. A number of papers confirmthat environmental marketing has a positive impact on the financial and market performance of the firm or product, typicallyoperationalized as a subjective metric perceived by the keyrespondent (e.g., Amores-Salvado et al., 2015 ; Leonidou et al., 2017).Empirical studies have also confirmed a positive link of environmental marketing with competitive advantage, marketing andexport performance (e.g., Fraj et al., 2011; Papadas et al., 2019).Compared to the maturity of the literature in terms of uncovering the link between the antecedents and performance outcomesof environmental marketing, the role of moderators is less understood. The extant studies imply a range of moderators (Fig. 2, M1-3), which can be grouped into similar main themes of the groupings of antecedents (A1-3). Fig. 2 splits the moderators according totheir effects on the link between the antecedents and the firm-levelenvironmental marketing (moderators e 1) or between environmental marketing and performance (moderators e 2), and it indicates the direction or the non-significance of the moderatingeffect. Among the moderators, those related to the business environment (M3) received the most attention (e.g., Feng and Wang,2016; Jiang et al., 2018).2.1.3. Research gap that this study aims to fillThe overview of the extant literature highlights a number ofgaps that provide an area for future research. The majority of thesegaps are discussed among the directions for future research. Amongthese gaps, this section focuses on better understanding of environmental contingencies. Moderator variables related to the business environment are listed in groups M3.1 and M3.2 in Fig. 2. Fig. 3further analyses studies of moderator variables related to thebusiness environment. These variables are grouped into two subcategories: variables related to the micro- or the macro environment. The micro-business environment refers to customers andcompetitor companies with similar offerings, while the macroenvironment refers to all forces with an impact on the company,such as political, economic, social, technological, environmentaland legal forces (Mullins and Walker, 2013).Fig. 3 contains only those studies in which the moderator variables studied the relationship between environmental orientationand environmental marketing or between environmental marketing and firm performance. For example, we excluded from Fig. 3Feng and Wang (2016), who confirmed that switching cost negatively moderates the effect of environmental management systemson customer satisfaction but did not consider the moderating effectwith respect to the link between environmental managementsystem performance relevant to our study. Fig. 3 also shows theeffect (positive or negative) and number (in parentheses) ofempirically investigated moderator variables related to the business environment (Fig. 3).Fig. 3 confirms conclusions drawn from Fig. 2, including that therole of moderator variables, in this case related to the businessenvironment, are poorly understood in the extant literature. Therehas been a limited number of studies (five) uncovering the roles ofbusiness environment-related moderators. Of these five studies,three are based on survey samples from manufacturing firms inChina published by the same first author (Chan et al., 2016; Chan,2010; Chan and Ma, 2016). The other two other studies are basedon empirical data from Greece and the UK, with an overlap of twoauthors in the two studies (Leonidou, C.N. et al., 2013; Leonidou,Fig. 2. Meta-framework of empirical studies in the domain of firm-level environmental orientation and marketing.T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 5L.C. et al., 2013a). Hence, it can be concluded that our current understanding of how business environment-related moderatorsaffect environmental orientation regarding environmental marketing and performance is based on a non-heterogenous empiricalbase in terms of both geographical dispersion and researchcollaboration diversity.Further, as Fig. 3 shows, studies investigating the moderatingeffect of the business environment typically consider one or twomoderating effects in one study (see the number of moderatingeffects in parentheses in Fig. 3), not allowing for a comparative,conceptual analysis of the various moderating effects. The moderating effect of variables related to the micro-environment is especially poorly understood. On the link between environmentalmarketing and firm performance, one moderator, competitive intensity, has been investigated in the prior literature, while on thelink between environmental orientation and environmental marketing, there have been none. Finally, we found no studies focusingon variables related to customers, although knowing your customers and understanding their roles in various managementprocesses are imperatives of marketing.3. Model and hypothesesTo address the above gap, we performed empirical research. Themodel used in this study (Fig. 4) focuses on the effect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing and subsequentlyon firm performance. The independent variable, environmentalorientation, is defined as the extent to which employees perceivethat environmental issues are important within the firm (Banerjee,2002). Environmental marketing is conceptualized as a management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying the requirements of customers and society in a sustainablemanner (Fraj-Andres et al., 2009 ), and firm performance is definedas the market share and profit rate growth of the firm over the pastyear compared to competitors (Zhou et al., 2005). The model alsocontains moderator and control variables defined in section 3.2.Measurement constructs and scale items are presented inAppendix 1 for all of the variables.3.1. Main hypothesesOur environmental marketing conceptualization is in line withprior approaches; hence, it is linked to several process elementsdproduct, price, channels of distribution, and marketingcommunicationsdof the marketing mix (Leonidou, C.N. et al.,2013). Environmental marketing initiatives that cover variousprocesses are often strategic in nature. Planning, design, andimplementation of these processes require coordinated operationof several operations and hence require coordinated operation ofseveral firm units, active participation, and the support ofemployees.Environmental orientation reflects the firm’s responsibility towards the natural environment and contributes to an organizationwide shared vision of the central role of green issues pertaining toproduct, price, distribution, and promotion (Banerjee et al., 2003).Hence, environmental orientation contributes to the developmentof a supportive organizational climate for the implementation ofenvironmental marketing processes. The commitment and dedication of employees towards environmental values help to accumulate and organize the resources necessary to developenvironmental marketing (Hart, 1995).H1. Environmental orientation has a positive effect on environmental marketingEnvironmental marketing plays important roles in achievingfirms’ goals to reduce negative environmental impacts derivedfrom extant products and production systems (Fraj-Andres et al.,2009b). These firm-level initiatives, when effectively communicated, generate additional revenues from customer segments sensitive to environmental issues (Chan, 2010). With worldwideappreciation of the role of environmental protection, companiesfocusing on environmental marketing are able to realize additionalrevenues by addressing green target groups representingincreasing market opportunities. Further, adopting environmentalmarketing strategies can enhance firms’ positive public images (Heet al., 2007), which e especially in competitive markets e can helpfirms to gain a strong competitive advantage and contribute tofinancial incomes (Leonidou, L.C. et al., 2013b).H2. Environmental marketing has a positive effect on firmperformance3.2. Moderating hypotheses and control variablesThis study considers the moderating effect of environmentalcontingencies. To provide a comprehensive view of the moderatingeffect of the business environment, we study variables related tothe micro-environment, as well as to the macro environment.Customers’ and competitors’ environmental orientations, definedFig. 3. Studies on moderator variables related to the business environment.6 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524as the extent to which customers and competitors perceive thatenvironmental issues are important to them, are considered amongthe micro-environmental variables. The legal environment andnatural environment e defined as the relationship of the firm withthe legal regulations and the natural environmentale are considered among the macro environmental contingencies (Banerjee,2002; Fraj-Andres et al., 2009 ).3.2.1. Customer and competitor environmental orientationWe propose that customers’ and competitors’ environmentalorientation can moderate the link among firm-level environmentalorientation, environmental marketing, and firm performance.Markets with high-level customer and competitor environmentalorientations are characterized by customers with a strong preference for environmentally friendly products and competitorsexerting significant efforts to emphasize green values.To survive in markets with high-level customer and competitorenvironmental orientations, firms must be responsive to customerpreferences and competitor reactions (Hanvanich et al., 2006). Suchcustomer and competitive pressures, hence, are likely to stimulatethe impact of an environmental orientation on environmentalmarketing. Under conditions of high environmental pressure fromcustomers and competitors, firms are stimulated to develop effective environmental marketing strategies (Leonidou, L.C. et al.,2013b). High market pressure from the micro-environment towards environmental values can exert managerial uncertainty andturbulence (Calantone et al., 2003). This uncertainty causes firmuncertainty to prompt companies to make more efficient use of theintangible resources (e.g., environmental orientation) that theyhave at their disposal (Chan, 2010). Hence, we expect that, due tohigher levels of pressure from the microenvironment, the impact ofenvironmental orientation on environmental marketing will behigher when both customers and competitors are more environmentally oriented.In competitive environments (e.g., high levels of competitorenvironmental orientation), the adoption of environmental marketing strategies helps firms achieve a strong advantage over keycompetitors, which is difficult to negate. In a similar vein, environmentally oriented customers could reject the purchasing ofproducts not produced sustainably. Logically, it is assumed that,under a high customer environmental orientation, the more thatthe firm is engaged in environmental marketing, the better that itsmarket performance is (Dolores Lopez-Gamero et al., 2011 ).H1a and H2a. Customers’ environmental orientation positivelymoderates the effect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing (H1a) and the effect of environmental marketingon performance (H2a).H1b and H2b. Competitors’ environmental orientation positivelymoderates the effect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing (H1b) and the effect of environmental marketingon performance (H2b).3.2.2. Legal environmentStrict environmental legislation means that a broad range ofgreen standards is ruled by a set of laws and regulations (Banerjeeet al., 2003). The legal environment per se is a driving force for proenvironmental behaviour through raising awareness levelsregarding green issues and shape policies and procedures withinthe firm; hence, firms that belong to more regulated industries tendto include more green issues in their management strategies(Lopez-Gamero et al., 2010 ). When regulatory stringency directlyFig. 4. Model.T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 7affects the pro-environmental behaviour of firms, we hypothesizethat the impact of environmental orientation on environmentalmarketing will be less prominent because firms, to avoid thenegative consequences of non-compliance, are pressured to reinforce their green business and marketing strategies, regardless ofthe degree of environmental orientation.Stringent legal regulations can also result in the imposition ofcoercive measures (e.g., fines, penalties), which can negativelyimpact the financial performance of companies. We assume thatthe legal environment could have a moderating effect on theenvironmental marketing and performance link. Under conditionsof strict legal regulation, characterized by coercive legislation, firmsare forced to consider environmental concepts for their productsand processes to avoid negative consequences. Hence, firms withlower levels of environmental marketing are more prone to negative financial consequences than firms with higher environmentalorientations.H1c and H2c. The legal environment negatively moderates theeffect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing(H1c) and positively moderates the effect of environmental marketing on performance (H2c).3.2.3. Natural environmentBy moderating role of the natural environment, we consideredwhether it impacts the firm’s financial well-being, and the businessactivity and demand and supply in the business depend on the stateof the natural environment. We hypothesize that, in such businesses, firms are motivated to consider greening their marketingprograms because of environmental concerns and to project anenvironmentally friendly image that expresses a company’s responsibility towards the natural environment (Fraj-Andres et al.,2009). To achieve this goal, due to normative pressure related tothe natural environment, firms will be more effective in translatingenvironmental orientation into environmental marketing. In asimilar vein, in industries in which the natural environment has adirect impact on business activity, firms’ ecological proactivity andsensitivity and the implementation of green marketing initiativescould be more rewarded in terms of business performance,compared to industries in which the natural environment is a lesssignificant factor in the macro-business environment.H1d and H2d. The natural environment positively moderates theeffect of environmental orientation on environmental marketing(H1d) and the effect of environmental marketing on performance(H2d).3.2.4. Control variablesCompany size and ownership are included as control variablesfor firm performance. We resorted to a frequently used categoricaldescription of firm size based on the number of employees (e.g.,Zailani et al., 2015). Larger firms might have more resources triggering higher performance; hence, adding firm size as a controlmight exclude rival explanations of firm performance. Ownershipstructure is included as a control variable because differentownership structures can consistently lead to different organizational performance (Chen et al., 2015).4. Methodology of empirical study4.1. Process of data collectionWe collected data for this research by means of a postal questionnaire sent to Hungarian companies with the highest salesrevenue. Of the 2,500 questionnaires sent, 296 were returned. TheHungarian Statistical Office’s company register was used as asampling frame. Table 2 shows the key characteristics of the samplefor this study.We followed the guidelines of Armstrong and Overton (1977) todetect biases due to non-response. The statistical method suggestscomparing responses (i.e., variables included in the model and keycharacteristics of respondents) submitted by quickly respondingversus more slowly responding firms to detect significant changes.This analysis did not reveal significant differences. We contactedevery single non-responding firm by phone, and this follow-upshowed that the major cause of non-response was related to thebusy schedules of respondents; hence, non-response was notinfluenced by a variable of key importance in our model.4.2. Testing of data collectionThe variables in our model were measured by means of multiitem, seven-point Likert scales. Scale items and measurementsconstructs are reported in Appendix 1. We opted to use a sevenpoint, instead of five-point, Likert scale since it is widely spreadin the broader domain of firm-level environmental practices (e.g.,Llach et al., 2013). Further, our respondents had full potential ofcognitive capabilities enabling them to rate their responses on amore complex scale, offering a broader variety of responses. Wetested for common method bias (CMB) because all of the variableswere collected simultaneously by means of the same instrument(Podsakoff et al., 2003). To minimize CMB threats, outcome variables and antecedent variables were placed in different sections ofthe questionnaire. We also tested statistically for CMB followingtwo techniques: the single-factor method (Harman, 1976) andevaluation of the correlation matrix (Bagozzi et al., 1991). The results indicate that the factor analysis of all of the survey items didnot cumulate into a single factor, and no single construct accountsfor the majority of the covariance among all of the constructs. Thecorrelation matrix of variables in the model (Table 3) does not showvery highly correlated items (Bagozzi et al., 1991).5. Data analysis5.1. Testing of measurement instrumentConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test for thereliability and validity of measurement instruments using SPSS andAMOS software. The testing results indicate a good fit since allrelated metrics are acceptable compared to the cut-off values. TheChi-square/df (c2/df) is less than 2.5, the standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR) is less than 0.08, the comparative fit index(CFI) is greater than 0.90, and the root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) is greater than 0.08 (Byrne, 2010). AsAppendix 1 shows, all of the standardized factor loadings are statistically significant (p < .05) and greater than 0.50 (Anderson andGerbing, 1988). The fit indices for the measurement model are:c2 ¼ 710.10, df ¼ 348; c2/df ¼ 2.04; p ¼ .000; CFI ¼ 0.95,SRMR ¼ 0.06, and RMSEA ¼ 0.06.The findings of the measurement instrument testing are summarized in Table 3.Table 3 presents means (ME) and standard deviations (SD) forthe scales used for measurement related to the assessment ofconstruct reliability. Both Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) and compositereliability (CR) measures are greater than the 0.70 threshold(Nunnally, 1967), showing good reliability of the constructs. Theaverage variance extracted (AVE) is also greater than the conventional cut-off value of 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). These testsconfirm the convergent validity of the measures. As Table 3 shows,8 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524the Fornell and Larker (1981) criteria, signalling discriminant validity, are also met because the correlation between two constructsis less than the square root of AVE, indicated on the diagonal.5.2. Testing of hypothesesWe used structural equation modelling (AMOS software) to testthe hypotheses. The testing of hypotheses (Table 4) indicates thatenvironmental orientation has a significant, positive effect onenvironmental marketing (b ¼ 0.66, p < .001), and environmentalmarketing also has a positive, but weaker, effect on firm performance (b ¼ 0.20, p < .01); hence, H1 and H2 are accepted.To test the hypothesized moderating effects, we created interaction terms by the case-wise multiplication of the underlyingstandardized construct scores for the predictor and moderatorvariables. The moderating latent variable as well as the interactionterm were then included in AMOS (Byrne, 2010). This frequentlyused approach was chosen over other methods of moderation examination in structural equation modelling, such as multi-groupanalysis, because the moderator variables are continuous in ourmodel, not categorical (such as ownership or gender) and creatingmultiple groups based on artificially dichotomized multiplecontinuous variables would results in loss of information, reducedthe capacity to detect true moderated relationships and increasedthe probability of Type 1 errors.Our results of hypothesis testing in Table 4 show that themoderating effect of both customers’ and competitors’ environmental orientations is insignificant in the link between environmental orientation and environmental marketing (b ¼ 0.02, n.s;b ¼ 0.06, n.s, respectively); hence, H1a and H1b are rejected. Wefound that the legal environment negatively moderates this link,while the natural environment has no moderating effect (b ¼ 0.15,p < .01; b ¼ 0.03, n.s.); thus, H1c is accepted, but H1d is rejected.Our results reveal that the moderating effect of customers’ environmental orientation is insignificant in the link between environmental marketing (b ¼ 0.07, n.s.) and firm performance,competitors’ environmental orientation and legal environmenthave positive moderating effects (b ¼ 0.18, p < .01; b ¼ 0.17, p < .05,respectively), and the natural environment has no moderating effect (b ¼ 0.01, n.s.), leading us to reject H2a, accept H2b and H2c andreject H2d.6. Discussion and contributionsOur study aims to enrich sustainability research and practice byproviding an integrated, synthesized overview of the current stateof knowledge on how environmental orientation contributes tofirm performance, as well as identifying inconsistencies, describingresearch insights, outlining future research directions and identifying existing gaps. In an attempt to address these gaps, this paper,based on empirical data, seeks to elucidate how environmentalorientation can have an impact on environmental marketing andfirm performance and to unravel the role of contingencies. MoreTable 2Key characteristics of firms in the sample (n ¼ 296).Company characteristic Percentage Company characteristic PercentageOwnership Number of employeesPrivate domestic 47.6 1000 9.1Private foreign 41.6 250e999 39.5State-owned 10.8 50e249 46.30e49 5.1Major field of operation SectorBusiness-to-customer 46.6 Only physical products 24.7Business-to-business 53.4 Only services 20.6Both physical products and services 54.7Table 3Properties of measurement scales.Constructs ME SD CA CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Environmental orientation 4.36 1.74 .90 .91 .67 .822. Environmental marketing 4.05 1.56 .92 .93 .74 .69 .863. Firm performance 4.40 1.24 .72 .74 .59 .15 .21 .774. Customers 3.77 1.69 .88 .88 .65 .49 .30 .12 .805. Competitors 3.88 1.57 .93 .94 .75 .51 .24 .04 .58 .866. Legal environment 5.92 1.79 .93 .93 .78 .71 .40 .01 .41 .47 .887. Natural environment 3.62 1.90 .87 .88 .64 .35 .23 .13 .07 .10 .29 .80ME: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; CR: Composite Reliability; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; AVE: Average Variance Extracted. Value on the diagonal is the square root of AVE. Controlvariables are not presented in this table as been measured by single items, nominal and ordinal scales. Descriptive statistics on the control variables can be found in Table 2.Table 4Empirical results: parameter estimates (standardized structural coefficients).Direct effects Beta
EO a / Environmental marketing b (H1)Environmental marketing / Firm performance c (H2)Moderating effectsEO Customers’ EO / Environmental marketing (H1a)EO Competitors’ EO / Environmental marketing (H1b)EO Legal environment / Environmental marketing (H1c)EO Natural environment / Environmental marketing (H1d)EO Customers’ EO / Firm performance (H2a)EO Competitors’ EO / Firm performance (H2b)EO Legal environment / Firm performance (H2c)EO Natural environment / Firm performance (H2d)Control effectsFirm size / Firm performanceOwnership / Firm performance
.66***.20**
.02-.06-.15**-.03.07.18**.17*.01
.16*-.03
Model fit: c2(400) ¼ 774.03; c2/df ¼ 1.93; p < .001; RMSEA ¼ 0.05; SRMR ¼ 0.06;NNFI ¼ 0.93; CFI ¼ 0.95; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.aEnvironmental orientation of the firm.b2R(variance explained) ¼.43.c2R¼.07T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 9specifically, we aim to answer the following research questions.RQ1: How does environmental orientation affect environmentalmarketing, and what is the effect of environmental marketing on firm performance?RQ2: Are these effects contingent on the micro- and macrobusiness environment of the firm?A systematic review of the literature reveals that environmentalorientation is a strong driver of environmental marketing and,more broadly, of the sustainable behaviour of the firm at the firmmarket interface. In addition to the orientations, attitudes, andvision of the firm and the top managers, slack resources, supportingprocesses and capabilities are also important enablers in establishing this sustainability.Findings from our empirical study confirm that environmentalorientation has a strong, positive effect on environmental marketing. This link is not moderated by customers’ or competitors’environmental orientations or the natural environment, and it isweakened by stringent ecological legislation. Environmental marketing also has a positive, but weak, impact on firm performance.This effect is strengthened (positively moderated) by competitors’environmental orientation and environmental legislation but notmoderated by customers’ environmental orientation and the natural environment.Examining the moderating variables from a different anglecould provide an explanation for the non-significant links. Weinitially categorized our variable as belonging either to the microenvironment or to the macro-environment. This widespread typology of the business environment is based on the notion of afirm’s influence changing these forces, with the microenvironment being the contingency variable with more direct impacts than the macro-environment (Mullins and Walker, 2013).However, as Table 5 shows, if we sort variables e instead of thefirm’s influence inducing changes e according to the strength of theobligatory force, the results show a meaningful pattern.The legal environment has the strongest obligatory force sincenon-compliance can result in direct costs for the firm, such aspenalties or fees. We found that the legal environment significantlymoderates both the degree to which environmental orientationtranslates into environmental orientation within the boundaries ofthe firm and the degree to which firm-level action (environmentalorientation) translates into the performance of the firm in themarketplace.The rest of the moderator variables investigated in this study arenorms. Norms refer to nonlegal obligations and are informal socialregularities that actors feel obligated to follow because of aninternalized sense of duty (McAdams, 1997). Competitors’ environmental orientation has stronger obligatory force than customersand the natural environment. Firms, operating in a social context,sees normative pressure in the environment as a strong behavioural driver to adopt environmental practices. Normative pressures from competitors are especially strong drivers of mimeticisomorphism across firms (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Mimeticisomorphism occurs when organizations model themselves afterthe practices of other organizations when they perceive the formsand practices of these others as appropriate or normatively sanctioned (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). This process can cause powerfulbandwagon effects that pressure other firms to adopt as well(Abrahamson, 1996). Hence, as the results imply, the normativepressures of competitors to adopt sustainable behaviour at thefirm-market interface can lead to higher performance outcomesbecause, due to mimetic motives, firms tend to invest in understanding the meaning and practices of environmental marketing,which in turn, are likely to increase the effectiveness of thebehaviour.A conceptual explanation for the non-significant moderatingeffects of normative pressure related to the customers and thenatural environment is related to the theory of the social judgement of organizations (Bitektine, 2011). This theory considers thecharacteristics of the evaluating actors, claiming that customersand the wider public create their social judgements under a lack ofsufficient information, conditions of bounded rationality and uncertainty. As a result, evaluations by these audiences are oftenbased on heuristics, such as the reputation of a firm. Combined witha weak obligation of non-compliance, such as a potentially worsepublic image related to the natural environment in the long run,customers’ environmental orientation and the natural environmentexert low levels of obligatory force and do not moderate the effectof environmental orientation on environmental marketing andsubsequently on firm performance.6.1. Theoretical implicationsThis study addresses an important research gap by synthesizingthe extant body of literature on the impact of environmentalorientation on environmental marketing and firm performance. Bydescribing this emergent body of literature, this study demonstrates how related studies have evolved over the past ten years.The findings show that studies have become more sophisticated interms of methodological approach (i.e., use of larger sample sizes,more advanced statistical methods) and geographically moredispersed. Moreover, the current paper extends this stream ofliterature by providing a meta-framework of different variablesincluded in the reviewed studies, providing a better understandingof how managers’ environmental orientations, views, and attitudestowards green issues translate into sustainable behaviour and ultimately into firm performance.This study contributes to the recent academic debate on the roleof environmental contingencies. Recently, cutting-edge scholarsTable 5Synthesis of empirical results: Main patterns arising from data analysis.Moderator variables (Obligatory force of moderator variables) Environmental orientation¼> Environmentalmarketing (H1)Environmental Marketing ¼> Firmperformance (H2)The domain of main hypothesesWithin-firm Firm to marketLegal environment (Strong obligation: immediate direct costs, fines/penalties)Significant (H1c) Significant (H2c)Competitor’s EO (Moderate obligation: normative pressure, mimetic motives,fear of missing out)Not significant (H1b) Significant (H2b)Customers’ EO (Weak obligation, normative pressure, reduced income) Not significant (H1a) Not significant (H2a)Natural environment (Weak obligation: normative pressure, worse publicreputation)Not significant (H1d) Not significant (H1d)10 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524have started to highlight the importance of moderator variables invarious streams and thoughts of management. For example, Farooqet al. (2017) extend social identity theory by emphasizing theimportance of boundary conditions. In a similar vein, Li et al. (2019)propose important moderators that influence the process of howawareness of workplace mistreatment translates down to behavioural reactions. Jones et al. (2018) claim that that identification ofmoderating influences is critical to the stakeholder discussion andmoderators are particularly important given that the businessenvironment seems to be changing in important ways. Our reviewconcluded that empirical evidence about the differential effects ofvarious types of moderator variables related to the business environment remains scarce and our understanding of how boundaryconditions influence firm-level environmental issues remainsrelatively underexplored.Our study aims to inject a theoretical perspective into therelatively atheoretic field of investigation of moderator variables inthis domain. In particular, we show that the moderating power ofvarious variables of the business environment is related to theobligatory force of these variables and the stringency of outcomesof non-compliance. Specifically, the legal environment and competitors’ environmental concerns have significant effects, whilecustomers’ sustainability concerns and the relationship of the firmwith the natural environment have no significant moderating effects in translating environmental behaviour into firm performance. Further empirical investigations are needed to validatethese results.6.2. Policy and managerial implicationsOur meta-framework provides insights into the value chain ofhow environmental orientation leads to firm-level environmentalmarketing and more broadly to sustainability at the firm-marketinterface and to firm performance. For example, our results arerelevant for decision makers who would be willing to emphasizeenvironmental values to strengthen sustainability initiatives withinfirms. Our results show that environmental marketing has anumber of positive market-level outcomes, such as better exportsand financial and market performance. Hence, managers willing toinvest in environmental marketing initiatives might emphasizethese positive performance effects in “selling” the concept withinthe firm, as well as to shareholders.Our results also imply that top management support is a veryimportant enabler of firm-level environmental marketing andsustainability initiatives. Hence, managers in charge of implementing environmental marketing and sustainability programs(i.e., green purchasing, green product innovation, greening of themarketing mix programs, etc.) should win the support of topmanagement for success. Findings from this study also suggest that,in addition to top management’s environmental beliefs, which to alarge extent determine the success of environmental marketinginitiatives, organizational resources, capabilities, and processes alsoplay important roles in environmental marketing success. Therefore, firms should not only strengthen their environmental orientation but also develop related organizational capabilities (e.g.,technology and market sensing) and provide slack resources.Our results regarding moderating variables could be useful forpolicy makers and managers as well. The findings reveal that themoderating effect of the external business environment is low inthe process of transforming a corporate value system into firmlevel behaviour. Policy makers, however, can significantly influence the profitability of the environmental marketing activities ofcompanies by shaping the business environment. Among the elements of the business environment, the most influential factor isenvironmental regulation. Another way in which this effect couldbe obtained is by shaping firms’ needs for green products/servicesby forming their environmental values. Educating the managers ofcompeting firms about environmental values, according to our results, seems to be more effective in enhancing the performanceoutcomes of environmental marketing than educating customers.Our results imply that managers track how competitors resonate with environmental values and record competitors’ environmental marketing because e as our results show e asenvironmental marketing tends to become a more pronouncedvalue among competitors, its role becomes more appreciated andfavoured by the market in terms of firm performance.7. Limitations and directions for future researchAs a result of this systematic literature research, several researchgaps and fruitful areas for further research emerge. As our metaframework shows, the extant studies mainly focus on antecedentsrelated to the organization (i.e., vision, and orientation of the firm,organizational processes, resources, etc.). So far, limited attention hasbeen paid to the role of dynamics within organizations. For example,questions persist, such as how cross-functional integration betweenvarious departments or the use of multi-departmental teams affectsenvironmental marketing initiatives. Similarly, the literature remainssilent about the very important question of how the reward andbenefits system of the firm affects the implementation of sustainability at the firm-market interface. The literature also remainsindebted to mapping exactly how and why environmental orientation leads to better environmental performance. Does environmentalorientation alone result directly in better market performance? Ordoes environmental orientation only provide an organizationalclimate that fosters the implementation of pro-environmental processes and projects, and these processes mediate the effect of environmental orientation on firm performance?The studies involved in the literature research, based on theperception of leaders, claimed that companies engaged in environmental marketing have better market performance. Doesfactual information, such as sales revenue or profits, justify thisconnection? If so, how much does environmental marketingcontribute to corporate performance, and how long can thiscontribution be sustained (for example, when competitors haveundertaken efforts and there is no longer a distinctive competitiveadvantage to using environmental marketing tools)?In our empirical research, we examined the relationship amongenvironmental orientation, environmental marketing, and marketperformance; however, as with all cross-sectional studies, causalityamong study variables is not established and remains theoretical.As a future research direction, it might be interesting to performlongitudinal examinations to identify the effects of environmentalmarketing on performance.In our research, we studied several industries, which has its ownlimitations. By surveying one industry, more targeted research canbe performed. In the future, it might also be interesting to examinewhether there are differences in the confirmed hypotheses amongfirms belonging to different industries or different types of companies, such as small and medium-sized enterprises or multinational companies.The generalization of our results related to moderating variablesrequires further validation. For example, the moderating power ofcustomers’ environmental orientation as an important element ofthe business environment can be tested among different types ofcustomers. These further studies could answer the question ofwhether the moderating effect of customers’ environmentalorientation is a different consumer than industrial markets, withfewer customers buying more and the power of customers beingtraditionally greater.T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 11AcknowledgementThe author is grateful for the financial support of the HungarianScientific Research Fund (OTKA, PD77726) in conducting the mailsurvey.Appendix 1. Measurement constructs and scale itemsConstruct and definition (measures inspired by or based on) Items (factor loadings in parentheses)Firm’s environmental orientation: the extent to which employees perceive that environmentalissues are important within the firm.Banerjee (2002) (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ Environmental issues are very relevant to the major function of our firm(.83)⁃ At our firm, we make a concerted effort to make every employeeunderstand the importance of environmental preservation (.79)⁃ We try to promote environmental preservation as a major goal acrossall departments (.85)⁃ Our firm has a clear policy statement urging environmental awarenessin every area of operations (.83)⁃ Preserving the environment is a central corporate value in our firm (.76)Environmental marketing: the management process responsible for identifying, anticipatingand satisfying the requirements of customers and society, in a sustainable way.Fraj-Andres et al. (2009) (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ Use environmental considerations in distribution and reverse logisticssystems (.83)⁃ Employ green arguments in advertising and promotions (.84)⁃ Consider environmental aspects within price policy (.90)⁃ Develop and launch of green positioned brands onto the market (.86)⁃ Gather and disseminate customers’ environmental needs (.85)Firm performance: the performance of the firm over the past year compared to competitors.Zhou et al. (2005) (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ far below the competitors, 7 ¼ far above thecompetitors)⁃ Our firm’s overall performance compared with major competitors overthe past year on market share growth (.86)⁃ Our firm’s overall performance compared with major competitors overthe past year on the growth rate of profit (.67)Customers’ environmental orientation: the extent to which customers perceive thatenvironmental issues are important to them. new scale (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ Environmental issues are very relevant for our customers (.69)⁃ Our customers have a strong preference for environmental-friendlyproducts (.91)⁃ Our customers would be willing to pay more for environmentalfriendly products (.74)⁃ Our customers’ product choices are positively influenced byenvironmental-friendly offers (.86)Competitors’ environmental orientation: the extent to which competitors perceive thatenvironmental issues are important to them. new scale (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ Our competitors have appropriate environmental certificates (.80)⁃ Our competitors emphasize green values in their marketing activities(87)⁃ Our competitors make significant efforts to use environmentallyfriendly technologies (.95)⁃ Environmental issues are very relevant for our competitors (.82)Legal environment: the relationship of the firm with the legal environmental regulations newscale (reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ In our industry legal environmental regulation play an important role(.88)⁃ We need to meet strict environmental regulations (.95)⁃ A company that fails to comply with environmental protection ruleswill be subject to a large fine (.81)⁃ In our industry, many rules and directives regulate our wastemanagement, emissions and environmental protection (.88)Natural environment: the relationship of the firm with the natural environmentBanerjee (2002) and (Fraj-Andres et al. (2009) )(reflective)(7-point Likert scale, 1 ¼ fully disagree, 7 ¼ fully agree)⁃ The natural environment currently affects our firm’s business activity(.92)⁃ The financial well-being of our firm depends on the state of the naturalenvironment (.90)⁃ Environmental preservation is vital to our firm’s survival (.66)⁃ Demand and supply in our business is to large extent a function ofnatural environment (.70)Firm size: operationalized based on the number of employees (single item) (single item, ordinal scale, four response options)⁃ 0e49 (n.a.)⁃ 50e249 (n.a.)⁃ 250e999 (n.a.)⁃ 1000 (n.a.)Ownership: operationalized as the owner of the majority of the firm (single item, nominal scale, three response options)⁃ Majority of the firm is owned by the state (n.a.)⁃ Majority of the firm is owned by domestic owner (n.a.)⁃ Majority of the firm is owned by foreign owner (n.a.)Fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis: c2(348) ¼ 710.10; c2/df ¼ 2.04; p < .001, CFI ¼ 0.95; SRMR ¼ 0.04; RMSEA ¼ 0.06, All loadings (where applicable) are significant atthe p < .001 level.12 T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524ReferencesAbrahamson, E., 1996. Management fashion. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (1), 254e285.Adidas, 2019. Adidas Golf Unveils First-Ever Golf Shoe Made from Upcycled PlasticWaste Intercepted from Beaches and Coastal Communities. Accessed 04 August2019. https://news.adidas.com/golf/adidas-golf-unveils-first-ever-golf-shoemade-from-upcycled-plastic-waste-intercepted-from-beaches-a/s/24be08d4-fead-463a-8e9b-37e1494be708.Amores-Salvado, J., Martin-de Castro, G., Navas-L opez, J.E., 2015. The importance ofthe complementarity between environmental management systems and environmental innovation capabilities: a firm level approach to environmental andbusiness performance benefits. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 96 (7), 288e297.Amores-Salvado, J., Martín-de Castro, G., Navas-L opez, J.E., 2014. Green corporateimage: moderating the connection between environmental product innovationand firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 83 (11), 356e365.Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411e423.Arli, D., Bauer, C., Palmatier, R.W., 2018. Relational selling: past, present and future.Ind. Mark. Manag. 69 (2), 169e184.Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.J. Market. Res. 14 (3), 396e402.Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.Mark. Sci. 16 (1), 74e94.Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizationalresearch. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (3), 421e458.Banerjee, S.B., 2002. Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement. J. Bus. Res. 55 (3), 177e191.Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2003. Corporate environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry type. J. Mark. 67 (2), 106e122.Bitektine, A., 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: the case oflegitimacy, reputation, and status. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (1), 151e179.Byrne, B.M., 2010. In: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,Applications and Programming, second ed. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,New York.Calantone, R., Garcia, R., Droge, C., 2003. The effects of environmental turbulence on €new product development strategy planning. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 20 (2),90e103.Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W., Dai, J., Lim, M.K., 2016. The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance. Int. J. Prod.Econ. 181 (Part B), 384e391.Chan, R.Y., 2010. Corporate environmentalism pursuit by foreign firms competing inChina. J. World Bus. 45 (1), 80e92.Chan, R.Y., He, H., Chan, H.K., Wang, W.Y., 2012. Environmental orientation andcorporate performance: the mediation mechanism of green supply chainmanagement and moderating effect of competitive intensity. Ind. Mark. Manag.41 (4), 621e630.Chan, R.Y., Ma, K.H., 2016. Environmental orientation of exporting SMEs from anemerging economy: its antecedents and consequences. Manag. Int. Rev. 56 (5),597e632.Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Li, J., Paille, P., 2015. Linking market orientation and envi-ronmental performance: the influence of environmental strategy, employee’senvironmental involvement, and environmental product quality. J. Bus. Ethics127 (2), 479e500.Dangelico, R.M., Vocalelli, D., 2017. “Green Marketing”: an analysis of definitions,strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J. Clean.Prod. 165 (11), 1263e1279.Dolores Lopez-Gamero, M., Claver-Cort es, E., Francisco Molina-Azorín, J., 2011.Environmental perception, management, and competitive opportunity inSpanish hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 52 (4), 480e500.Farooq, O., Rupp, D.E., Farooq, M., 2017. The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizationalidentification and multifoci outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Acad. Manag. J. 60 (3), 954e985.Feng, T., Wang, D., 2016. The influence of environmental management systems onfinancial performance: a moderated-mediation analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 135 (2),265e278.Fornell, C., Larker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39e50.Fraj-Andres, E., Martinez-Salinas, E., Matute-Vallejo, J., 2009a. A multidimensionalapproach to the influence of environmental marketing and orientation on thefirm’s organizational performance. J. Bus. Ethics 88 (2), 263e286.Fraj-Andres, E., Martínez-Salinas, E., Matute-Vallejo, J., 2009b. Factors affectingcorporate environmental strategy in Spanish industrial firms. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 18 (8), 500e514.Fraj, E., Martínez, E., Matute, J., 2011. Green marketing strategy and the firm’sperformance: the moderating role of environmental culture. J. Strateg. Mark. 19(4), 339e355.Groening, C., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2018. Green marketing consumer-level theory review: a compendium of applied theories and further research directions.J. Clean. Prod. 172 (1), 1848e1866.Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., Hult, G.T.M., 2006. The relationship of learning andmemory with organizational performance: the moderating role of turbulence.J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 34 (4), 600e612.Harman, H.H., 1976. In: Modern Factor Analysis, 2 ed. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),986e1014.He, Y., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., 2007. Performance implications of nonmarket strategy inChina. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 24 (2), 151e169.IKEA, 2018. IKEA to Phase Out Single-Use Plastic from its Home Furnishing Rangeand Restaurants by 2020. https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ikea-to-phase-out-single-use-plastic-pub1b1cf73b. Accessed 04 August 2019.Ip, G., 2019. Business worries about climate intensify. Business actions to fix it, notso much. https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-worries-about-climateintensify-their-actions-less-so-11547643600. (Accessed 4 August 2019).Jiang, W., Chai, H., Shao, J., Feng, T., 2018. Green entrepreneurial orientation forenhancing firm performance: a dynamic capability perspective. J. Clean. Prod.198 (10), 1311e1323.Jones, T.M., Harrison, J.S., Felps, W., 2018. How applying instrumental stakeholdertheory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 43(3), 371e391.Kim, M., Stepchenkova, S., 2018. Does environmental leadership affect market andeco performance? Evidence from Korean franchise firms. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 33(4), 417e428.Leonidou, C.N., Katsikeas, C.S., Morgan, N.A., 2013. “Greening” the marketing mix:do firms do it and does it pay off? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41 (2), 151e170.Leonidou, L.C., Christodoulides, P., Kyrgidou, L.P., Palihawadana, D., 2017. Internaldrivers and performance consequences of small firm green business strategy:the moderating role of external forces. J. Bus. Ethics 140 (3), 585e606.Leonidou, L.C., Katsikeas, C.S., Fotiadis, T.A., Christodoulides, P., 2013a. Antecedentsand consequences of an eco-friendly export marketing strategy: the moderating role of foreign public concern and competitive intensity. J Intl. Mark. 21(3), 22e46.Leonidou, L.C., Leonidou, C.N., Fotiadis, T.A., Zeriti, A., 2013b. Resources and capabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy: implications forcompetitive advantage and performance. Tour. Manag. 35 (4), 94e110.Li, X., McAllister, D.J., Ilies, R., Gloor, J.L., 2019. Schadenfreude: a counternormativeobserver response to workplace mistreatment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44 (2),360e376.Llach, J., Perramon, J., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Bagur-Femenías, L., 2013. Jointimpact of quality and environmental practices on firm performance in smallservice businesses: an empirical study of restaurants. J. Clean. Prod. 44 (4),96e104.Lopez-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Claver-Cort es, E., 2010. The potential ofenvironmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmentalmanagement, competitiveness and financial performance. J. Clean. Prod. 18(10e11), 963e974.McAdams, R.H., 1997. The origin, development, and regulation of norms. Mich. LawRev. 96 (2), 338e433.Mizruchi, M.S., Fein, L.C., 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge:a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Adm. Sci.Q. 44 (4), 653e683.Mullins, J.W., Walker, O.C., 2013. In: Marketing Management: A Strategic DecisionMaking Approach, eighth ed. ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Nunnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGrow-Hill, New York.Papadas, K.-K., Avlonitis, G.J., Carrigan, M., Piha, L., 2019. The interplay of strategicand internal green marketing orientation on competitive advantage. J. Bus. Res.(in press).Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879e903.Thu, P.D.D., Paille, P., Halilem, N., 2018. Systematic review on environmental inno-vativeness: a knowledge-based resource view. J. Clean. Prod. 211 (2),1088e1099.Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developingevidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.J. Manag. 14 (3), 207e222.You, D., Zhang, Y., Yuan, B., 2019. Environmental regulation and firm ecoinnovation: evidence of moderating effects of fiscal decentralization and political competition from listed Chinese industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 207(1), 1072e1083.Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M.R., Chong, Y.S., 2015. Greeninnovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. J. Clean.Prod. 108 (12), 1115e1122.Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y., Yang, Z., Zhou, N., 2005. Developing strategic orientation inChina: antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations.J. Bus. Res. 58 (8), 1049e1058.T. Keszey / Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118524 13

Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER