|Phaninee Naruetharadhol||1. Business Administration Division, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002 2. Expedite: Global Consulting Management Center, Khon Kaen University Int|
|Wutthiya A. Srisathan||1. Business Administration Division, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002 2. Expedite: Global Consulting Management Center, Khon Kaen University Int|
|Monpak Suganya||Business Administration Division, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002|
|Jiranarin Jantasombut||Business Administration Division, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002|
|Sasichay Prommeta||Business Administration Division, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002|
|Chavis Ketkaew||Expedite: Global Consulting Management Center, Khon Kaen University International College, 123 Mitrphap Rd., Khon Kaen, Thailand 40002|
innovation has been valued as a mechanism to reduce environmental impacts,
which can increase organizational commitment and engagement propensities for
environmental sustainability. This paper aimed to understand: (1) how does
green innovation recognition affect the organizational structure? and (2) how
can organizational structure help most internal stakeholders commit and engage
in the organization’s environmental objective? The data from 250 Thai heavy
industrial organizations were collected.
The results showed that there were significant relationships among green innovation
recognition, organizational structure, and organizations’ environmental
commitment and engagement. Besides, the intermediary role of differentiation
and integration showed a significant influence on commitment and engagement.
Our paper suggests that policymakers and entrepreneurs should introduce green
innovation to their organizations to heighten the level of environmental
sustainability in their strategy and policy.
Green innovation; Organizational commitment; Organizational engagement; Organizational structure; Thailand
In the past two decades, most organizations have become more aware of environmental crises and anthropogenic activities impacting it. Green innovation is the practical models for leveraging and implementing innovative effects in the organizational analysis in terms of environmental aspects (Calza et al., 2017). Green innovation is an essential strategic catalyst for enacting structural changes and engages and commits organizations to understand sustainability, including the involvement of technological innovation in waste-recycling, pollution-prevention, and energy-saving (El-Kassar and Singh, 2019). Global warming and climate change are environmentally caused by economic and business activities, whether inside organizations or not (Patz et al., 2005), this requires sustainability to create alternative designs and stimulate innovation (Suwartha et al., 2017).
Green innovation at the organizational level has been widely recognized as an important means of endpoint ecological competition. The work of Yang et al. (2017) confirms that the environment can be improved by implementing green innovation into organizations. Moreover, green innovations help to improve organizational efficiency, competitiveness, and the green image of the organization by permitting them to have eco-friendly improvements in terms of products, processes, and managerial aspects (Yusuf et al., 2018). Armando’s (2016) empirical work found that a well-design organizational structure impacts a firm’s innovation output. Thus, if organizational structure decides to adopt and absorb innovation, the recognition of innovation is required (Naruetharadhol et al., 2020). As a result, we pose these key research questions to understand this phenomenon as follows: firstly, how does green innovation recognition affect the organizational structure? Secondly, once that effect is delivered, how can the organizational structure deliver such recognition to commit and engage most internal stakeholders in the organization’s green objective?
From a theoretical standpoint, Rogers (2003) defines the innovation adoption process in stages, including recognition (i.e., individuals recognize the knowledge of innovation), consideration (i.e., individuals form an attitude towards the innovation), intention (i.e., individuals decide to adopt the innovation), adoption decision (i.e., individuals implement the innovation), and continuum of use (i.e., individuals continuously confirm the use of the innovation). Frambach and Schillewaert (2002) theoretically identify the innovation adoption process in two stages: initiation and implementation. In the initiation stage, the adoption process encompasses the awareness, consideration, and intention substages. Hence, this current research problem involves the awareness substage of the innovation adoption process, in which the concept of green innovation is recognized and introduced within organizations but not yet adopted.
There was only empirical evidence’s Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan (1998) to support the phenomenon of the organizational structure’s effect on innovation. This relationship between organizational structure and innovation is an attempt to explain the working styles that support and absorb innovations (Ali et al., 2018). Besides, Menguc and Auh (2010) found that the informal structure has a positive impact on radical and incremental product innovation capabilities. This indicates that if individuals’ personalities and professional requirements are informally authorized to design this professional behavior, it will increase the capabilities of innovations, necessitating different means of learning from inside and out. This stage of the innovation process represents the success of innovation or the innovation-adoption decision stage but is beyond the recognition stage.
Our knowledge gap exists in the commitment and engagement propensities from recognizing green innovation offered. Consequently, this current research focuses on the stage of recognition, which will most likely allow them to understand its essence gradually. In doing so, when an organization realizes environmental issues, it becomes more complex for individuals in different specialised departments to correspond to one another. This creates pressure for integrative mechanisms such as top management group to ensure that those in charge of distinct functions that are aware of environmental issues from their activities. Organizational structure, therefore, has an intermediary role to link green innovation recognition with commitment and engagement.
result, it is assumed that when the organization recognizes or introduces green
innovation, this may induce a positive change in the organizational structure.
The work difference in structure matters to coordinate their work activities
among functional departments, this relates to organizational differentiation
and integration. What is more, if organizational structure may change due to
the recognition of green innovation, it is possible to increase organizational
commitment towards environmental goals since it enables internal stakeholders
(especially employees) to be satisfied with the organization’s green concerns. Kim and Shin (2019) found that the willingness to
accept the organization's green initiatives or goals is revealed in the
organizational structure, wherein the psychologically empowering process of
transformational leadership behaviors is effectively induced. Concurrently, the
organizational structure will also affect organizational engagement; Funminiyi (2018) founds that a decentralized
structure of control tends to support employee productivity and increase
employee performance. Thus, when the management motivates employees to become
aware of the green innovation concept, this phenomenon will give them either a
positive or negative attitude towards the organization. It creates a platform
where employees can be fully engaged, which is what organizations want: higher
performance from employees. Organizations also need to encourage the strength
of organizational attachment toward environmental sustainability or the
surrounding environment — this
refers to organizational commitment to the environment. While environmental
problems become aware, organizations need to change their behaviors to involve
sustainability — this refers to organizational engagement in environment.
Taking all the above into account, we form hypotheses to answer those questions
(see Figure 1).
This research aimed to understand the influence of green innovation recognition to foster organizations’ environmental commitment and engagement, wherein organizational structure plays an intermediary role in achieving them. Our contribution to the literature on green innovation is twofold. First, we highlight the role of green innovation recognition — that is, the recognition to make a change at the process of internal collaboration. Second, we find that the relationships between organizational structure, engagement, and commitment make sense. But once green innovation is introduced although the results are significant; it does not guarantee that the levels of engagement and commitment will increase. However, most organizations in Thailand's heavy industry may not follow environmental regulations to provide transparent and well-structured practices for assessing green innovation opportunities.
Future research can focus on a
long-term study discussing the variable change of green innovation and
organizational structure in the firm’s heavy industry. But before that, it is
encouraged to reconfirm the possible relationship between green innovation
recognition and organizational structure. The adoption of green innovation may
need to test in the research framework. Moreover, other organizations'
features, such as organizational design and organizational culture, will affect
organizational commitment and organizational engagement. So, we suggest that
future research continue discussions concerning these organizational design and
organizational culture features of other organizations, thereby affecting the
results in the research framework. Essentially, more research from a large
sample will help confirm our findings. Further investigation should interrogate
the role of organizational culture in the relationship between green innovation
and organizational structure in a developing country. In particular, culture
may change the supportive climate of green innovation in the firm, i.e., how
that culture provides the extent to which firms can achieve environmental
commitment. Furthermore, future studies should investigate the effects of other
sub-dimensions (e.g., green marketing innovation) of green innovation
absorption to engage in job-related attitudes and behaviors.
Ali, M., Ali, I., Al-Maimani, K.A., Park, K., 2018. The Effect of Organizational Structure on Absorptive Capacity in Single and Dual Learning Modes. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Volume 3(3), pp. 108–114
Armando, M.-I.D., 2016. Organizational Structure and Innovation: Analysis from the Strategic Co-alignment. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, Volume 29(4), pp. 388–406
Baruch, Y., 1999. Response Rate in Academic Studies - A Comparative Analysis. Human Relations, Volume 52(4), pp. 421–438
Berawi, M.A., 2018. Creating Sustainable Design and Technology Development: A Call for Innovation. International Journal of Technology, Volume 6(1), pp. 1–2
Calza, F., Parmentola, A., Tutore, I., 2017. Types of Green Innovations: Ways of Implementation in a Non-Green Industry. Sustainability, Volume 9(8), pp. 1–16
Damanpour, F., Gopalakrishnan, S., 1998. Theories of Organizational Structure and Innovation Adoption: The Role of Environmental Change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, Volume 15(1), pp. 1–24
El-Kassar, A.N., Singh, S.K., 2019. Green Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Influence of Big Data and The Moderating Role of Management Commitment and HR Practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 144, pp. 483–498
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 18(1), pp. 39–50
Frambach, R.T., Schillewaert, N., 2002. Organizational Innovation Adoption: A Multi-Level Framework of Determinants and Opportunities for Future Research. Journal of Business Research, Volume 55(2), pp. 163–176
Funminiyi, A.K., 2018. Impact of Organisational Structure on Employee Engagement: Evidence from North Central Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, Volume 4(8), pp. 579–589
García-Granero, E.M., Piedra-Muñoz, L., Galdeano-Gómez, E., 2018. Eco-Innovation Measurement: A Review of Firm Performance Indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 191, pp. 304–317
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2013. Multivariate Data Analysis. London, UK: Pearson Education Limited
Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 33(4), pp. 692–724
Kim, S., Shin, M., 2019. Transformational Leadership Behaviors, the Empowering Process, and Organizational Commitment: Investigating the Moderating Role of Organizational Structure in Korea. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 30(2), pp. 251–275
Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th Edition. NY, USA: Guilford Publications
Kunapatarawong, R., Martínez-Ros, E., 2016. Towards Green Growth: How Does Green Innovation Affect Employment?. Research Policy, Volume 45(6), pp. 1218–1232
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 12(1), pp. 1–47
Liao, C., Chuang, S.H., To, P.L., 2011. How Knowledge Management Mediates the Relationship between Environment and Organizational Structure. Journal of Business Research, Volume 64(7), pp. 728–736
Menguc, B., Auh, S., 2010. Development and Return on Execution of Product Innovation Capabilities: The Role of Organizational Structure. Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 39(5), pp. 820–831
Meyer, J.P., Alien, N.J., 1991. A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 1(1), pp. 61–89
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, Volume 58(3), pp. 20–38
Naruetharadhol, P., Srisathan, W.A., Ketkaew, C., 2020. The Effect of Open Innovation Implementation on Small Firms’ Propensity for Inbound and Outbound Open Innovation Practices. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Volume 329, pp. 30–40
Patz, J.A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., Foley, J.A., 2005. Impact of Regional Climate Change on Human Health. Nature, Volume 438, pp. 310–317
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. In: Social Networks. 5th Edition. NY, USA: Free Press.
Suwartha, N., Ardiyansyah, Berawi, M.A., Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T.Y.M., Atmodiwirjo, P., Yatmo, Y.A., 2017. Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable World. International Journal of Technology. Volume 8(6), pp. 979–982
Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., 2017. Green, Green, it’s Green: A Triad Model of Technology, Culture, and Innovation for Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability, Volume 9(8), pp. 1–23
Yusuf, M.F., Ashari, H., Razalli, M.R., 2018. Environmental
Technological Innovation and Its Contribution to Sustainable Development. International Journal of Technology,
Volume 9(8), pp. 1569–1578