Sostenibilità ambientale e indipendenza del Consiglio di Amministrazione: Quali effetti sull’innovazione ambidestra?

Titolo Rivista CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Autori/Curatori Maria Vincenza Ciasullo, Raffaella Montera, Alex Douglas
Anno di pubblicazione 2020 Fascicolo 2020/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 28 P. 41-63 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/cgrds1-2020oa10134
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Lo studio si ripropone di esaminare la relazione tra i concetti di sostenibilità ambientale (SA) e innovazione ambidestra (IA), analizzando contestualmente il ruolo che l’indipendenza del Consiglio di Amministrazione (ICdA) svolge nel moderare la relazione stessa. A tal fine, un modello di ricerca viene sviluppato alla luce della teoria dell’impresa basata sulle risorse naturali e della teoria dell’agenzia. Un’inchiesta campionaria viene condotta su 111 imprese italiane quotate alla Borsa di Milano. Una regressione gerarchica moderata ha rivelato che la SA influenza positivamente l’innovazione sfruttativa ed esplorativa. Inoltre, l’ICdA rafforza l’effetto esercitato dalla SA sulla IA. Tali risultati contribuiscono alla letteratura sull’IA sia perché identificano la SA quale chiave strategica per risolvere le tensioni tra sfruttamento ed esplorazione nelle innovazioni delle imprese sia perché suggeriscono che la crescente presenza di direttori indipendenti nel CdA favorisce il perseguimento congiunto delle due opposte attività.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between environmental sustainability (ES) and innovation ambidexterity (IA), also considering the role of board independence (BI) in moderating this relationship. To this end, a research model is developed by drawing on both the natural resource-based view theory and agency theory. A survey is conducted on 111 Italian companies listed on the Milan Stock Exchange. A moderated hierarchical regression has revealed that ES positively influences exploitation innovation and exploration innovation. Moreover, BI strengthens the effect of ES on IA. These findings contribute to the IA literature identifying ES as strategic key to resolve the tensions between exploitation and exploration in firms’ innovations as well as suggesting that the increasing presence of independent directors on the board foster the joint pursuit of the two contradictory activities.

Keywords:environmental sustainability; board independence; innovation ambidexterity; exploitation innovation; exploration innovation

  1. Gupta A.K., Smith K.G., Shalley C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, n. 4, pp. 693-706. DOI: 10.2307/20159793
  2. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, Pearson, NJ: Prentice hall.
  3. Aiken L.S., West S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  4. Akhtar P., Ullah S., Amin S.H., Kabra G., Shaw S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and environmental sustainability for emerging economies’ multinational enterprises. International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 50, n. 1, pp. 27-42. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2019.1703376
  5. Aktin T., Gergin Z. (2016). Mathematical modelling of sustainable procurement strategies: three case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 767-780. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.057
  6. Albort-Morant G., Leal-Millán A., Cepeda-Carrión G. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, n. 11, pp. 4912-4917. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052
  7. Andriopoulos C., Lewis M.W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 696-717. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
  8. Baalouch F., Ayadi S.D., Hussainey K. (2019). A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: evidence from French listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance, vol. 23, n. 4, pp. 939-971. DOI: 10.1007/s10997-019-09474-0
  9. Bakos J., Siu M., Orengo A., Kasiri N. (2020). An analysis of environmental sustainability in small & medium‐sized enterprises: Patterns and trends. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, n. 3, pp. 1285-1296. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2433
  10. Balsmeier B., Fleming L., Masno G. (2017). Independent boards and innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 123, n. 3, pp. 536-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.12.005
  11. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, n. 6, pp. 1173-1182. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  12. Ben‐Amar W., Chang M., McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 142, n. 2, pp. 369-383. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1
  13. Ben‐Amar W., McIlkenny P. (2015). Board effectiveness and the voluntary disclosure of climate change information. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 24, n. 8, pp. 704-719. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1840
  14. Benner M.J., Tushman M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 238-256. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
  15. Berraies S., Bchini B. (2019). Effect of leadership styles on financial performance: mediating roles of exploitative and exploratory innovations case of knowledgeintensive firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 23, n. 3, pp. 1-33. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919619500208
  16. Berraies S., Rejeb B.W. (2019). Boards of directors’ roles and size: What effects on exploitative and exploratory innovations? Case of listed Tunisian firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, vol. 23, n. 2, pp. 161-179. DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2019.098148
  17. Bilgili F., Ulucak R (2020) The Nexus between biomass–footprint and sustainable development. In: Saleem Hashmi, Imtiaz Ahmed Choudhury, editor, Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials. Volume 2, 2020, pp. 175-192, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10600-9
  18. Burritt R.L., Christ K.L., Rammal H.G., Schaltegger S. (2018). Multinational enterprise strategies for addressing sustainability: The need for consolidation. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-4066-0
  19. Cabrera-Suárez M.K., Martín-Santana J.D. (2015). Board composition and performance in Spanish non-listed family firms: The influence of type of directors and CEO duality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 213-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.brq.2014.08.001
  20. Calza F., Profumo G., Tutore I. (2016). Corporate ownership and environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, n. 6, pp. 369-389. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1873
  21. Cantarello S., Carretti C., Giannantonio R., Nosella, A. (2012). Organisational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process: evidence from a leading case study. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, vol. 5, n. 1/2, pp. 133-153. DOI: 10.1504/IJKMS.2012.051951
  22. Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H.P. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
  23. Chen H.L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 19, n. 4, pp. 334-350. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00850.x
  24. Chen H.L. (2013). CEO tenure, independent directors and strategic decisions toward R&D. 3rd International Conference on Business Strategy and Organizational Behaviour, April 22–23, Singapore.
  25. Chen H.L., Hsu W.T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22, pp. 347-362. DOI: 0.1177/0894486509341062
  26. Ciasullo Maria V., Montera R., Cucari N., Polese F. (2020). How an international ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals, Business Strategy and The Environment, pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2490
  27. Clementino E., Perkins R. (2020). How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04441-4
  28. Collins E., Roper J., Lawrence S. (2010). Sustainability practices: Trends in New Zealand businesses. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 19, n. 8, pp. 479-494. DOI: 10.1002/bse.653
  29. Cucari N., Esposito De Falco S., Orlando B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 250-266. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1452
  30. Demirel P., Kesidou E. (2019). Sustainability‐oriented capabilities for ecoinnovation: Meeting the regulatory, technology, and market demands. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, n. 5, pp. 847-857. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2286
  31. De Stefano C.M., Montes-Sancho M.J., Busch T. (2016). A natural resource-based view of climate change: Innovation challenges in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 139, pp. 1436-1448. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.023
  32. Duque Grisales E., Aguilera Caracuel J., Guerrero Villegas J., García Sánchez E. (2020). Can proactive environmental strategy improve Multilatinas’ level of internationalization? The moderating role of board independence. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, pp. 291-305. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2377
  33. Eide A.E., Saether E.A., Aspelund A. (2020). An investigation of leaders’ motivation, intellectual leadership, and sustainability strategy in relation to Norwegian manufacturers’ performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 254, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120053
  34. Elkington J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of the 21st Century. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek, CT.
  35. Elkington J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 14, n. 6, pp. 522-529. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2006.00527.x
  36. Endrikat J., De Villiers C., Guenther T. W., Guenther E. M. (2020). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: a meta-analytic investigation. Business & Society, pp. 1-37. DOI: 10.1177/0007650320930638
  37. Fama E.F., Jensen M.C. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, n. 2, pp. 327-349. DOI: 10.1086/467038
  38. Galdeano-Gómez E., Aznar-SánchezJ. A., Pérez-Mesa J.C. (2013). Sustainability dimensions related to agricultural-based development: the experience of 50 years of intensive farming in Almería (Spain). International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 125-143. DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2012.704306
  39. Galia F., Zenou E. (2012). Board composition and forms of innovation: does diversity make a difference? European Journal of International Management, vol. 6, n. 6, pp. 630-650. DOI: 10.1504/EJIM.2012.050425
  40. Galia F., Zenou E., Ingham M. (2015). Board composition and environmental innovation: does gender diversity matter? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol. 24, n. 1, pp. 117-141. DOI: 10.1504/IJESB.2015.066152
  41. García Martín C.J., Herrero B. (2019). Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, pp. 74-94. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1775
  42. Garcia Osma B. (2008). Board independence and real earnings management: The case of R&D expenditure. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 16, n. 2, pp. 116-131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00672.x
  43. Goodland R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 26, n. 1, pp. 1-24. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245
  44. Graafland J. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility put reputation at risk by inviting activist targeting? An empirical test among European SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 1, pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1422
  45. Gupta A.K., Gupta N. (2020). Effect of corporate environmental sustainability on dimensions of firm performance. Towards sustainable development: Evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 253, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119948
  46. Haque F., Ntim C.G. (2018). Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 27, n. 3, pp. 415-435. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2007
  47. Hart S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 986-1014. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033
  48. Hart S.L., Dowell G. (2011). Invited Editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, vol. 37, n. 5, pp. 1464–1479. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310390219
  49. Hill C.W., Jones T.M. (1992). Stakeholder‐agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, n. 2, pp. 131-154. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x
  50. Holdren J.P., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R. (1995), “The meaning of sustainability: biogeophysical aspects”. In: Munasingha, M., Shearer, W. (Eds.), Defining and measuring sustainability, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  51. Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Johnson R.A., Grossman W. (2002). Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, n. 4, pp. 697-716. DOI: 10.5465/3069305
  52. Hussain N., Rigoni U., Cavezzali E. (2018). Does it pay to be sustainable? Looking inside the black box of the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 6, pp. 1198-1211. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/csr.1631
  53. Jansen J.J., Van Den Bosch F.A., Volberda H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, vol. 52, n. 11, pp. 1661-1674. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
  54. Ji Q., Zhang D. (2019). How much does financial development contribute to renewable energy growth and upgrading of energy structure in China? Energy Policy, vol. 128, pp. 114-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.047
  55. Jiraporn P., Lee S.M., Park K.J., Song H. (2018). How do independent directors influence innovation productivity? A quasi-natural experiment. Applied Economics Letters, vol. 25, n. 7, pp. 435-441. DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2017.1329927
  56. Kassinis G., Vafeas N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, n. 5, pp. 399-415. DOI: 10.1002/smj.230
  57. King A., Lenox M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, vol. 48, n. 2, pp. 289-299. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.2.289.258
  58. Kortmann S. (2015). The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 32, n. 5, pp. 666–684. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12151
  59. Kuntadi Y., Sumarwan U., Najib M., Jahroh S. (2020). The effects of gender and tenure on the relationship between decision-makers’ behavioral preferences and university’s innovations adoption. Management Science Letters, vol. 10, n. 14, pp. 3445-3452. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.033
  60. Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M.L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 4, n. 1, pp. 109-155. DOI: 10.5465/19416521003691287
  61. Lavrakas P.J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  62. Levinthal D.A., March J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 14 (S2), pp. 95–112. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250141009
  63. Liao L., Luo L., Tang Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, vol. 47, n. 4, pp. 409-424. DOI: /10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
  64. March J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 71-87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  65. Moldan B., Janoušková S., and Hák T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, vol. 17, pp. 4-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033
  66. Mollenkopf D., Stolze H., Tate W.L., Ueltschy M. (2010). Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, vol. 40, n. 1/2, pp. 14-41. DOI: 10.1108/09600031011018028
  67. Nidumolu R., Prahalad K., Rangaswami M. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, vol. 87, n. 9, pp. 56-64. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2015.7123233
  68. Nunnally J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
  69. OECD (2001). Environmental strategy for the first decade of the 21st century. OECD, Paris.
  70. OECD (2020). Enterprises by business size (indicator). DOI: 10.1787/31d5eeaf-en (Accessed on 26 August 2020)
  71. Oehmichen J., Heyden M.L.M., Georgakakis D., Volberda H.W. (2017). Boards of directors and organizational ambidexterity in knowledge-intensive firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 283-306. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1244904
  72. Ortiz de Mandojana N., Aragón Correa J.A., Delgado Ceballos J., Ferrón Vílchez V. (2012). The effect of director interlocks on firms’ adoption of proactive environmental strategies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 20, n. 2, pp. 164-178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00893.x
  73. Ortiz-de-Mandojana N., Aragón-Correa J. A. (2015). Boards and sustainability: the contingent influence of director interlocks on corporate environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 24, n. 6, pp. 499-517. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1833
  74. Parboteeah, K., Helena A., Cullen J. (2012). Propensity to support sustainability initiatives: A cross-national model. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 105, n. 3, pp. 403-413. DOI: 0.1007/s10551-011-0979-6
  75. Pérez-Valls M., Céspedes-Lorente J., Moreno-García J. (2015). Green practices and organizational design as sources of strategic flexibility and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, n. 8, pp. 529-544. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1881
  76. Pisano G.P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, vol. 93, p. 22.
  77. Prado Lorenzo J.M., Garcia Sanchez I.M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 97, n. 3, pp. 391-424. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0515-0
  78. Purvis B., Mao Y., Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, vol. 14, n. 3, pp. 681-695. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
  79. Quattrociocchi B., Sergiacomi S., Mercuri F. (2019). The influence of corporate board on non-financial disclosure according to the main organizational theories. Corporate Governance and Research & Development studies, vol. 1, pp. 19-36.
  80. Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, vol. 34, n. 3, pp. 375-409. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316058
  81. Rantala T., Ukko J., Saunila M., Havukainen J. (2018). The effect of sustainability in the adoption of technological, service, and business model innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 46-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.009
  82. Rejeb W.B., Berraies S., Talbi D. (2019). The contribution of board of directors’roles to ambidextrous innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, pp. 1-27. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-06-2018-0110
  83. Schamberger D.K., Cleven N.J., Brettel M. (2013). Performance effects of exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies and the moderating role of external innovation partners. Industry and Innovation, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 336-356. DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2013.805928
  84. Scherer A.G., Voegtlin C. (2020). Corporate governance for responsible innovation: approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 182-208. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2017.0175
  85. Serageldin I., Streeter A. (1993). Valuing the environment: proceedings of the first annual conference on environmentally sustainable development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings, Series. No. 2, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  86. Shaukat A., Qiu Y., Trojanowski G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 135, n. 3, pp. 569-585. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9
  87. Sulphey M.M., Alkahthani N.S. (2017). Organizational ambidexterity as a prelude to corporate sustainability. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, vol. 7, n. 2. DOI: 10.9770/jssi.2017.7.2(13)
  88. Triguero A., Moreno-Mondéjar L., Davia M.A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, vol. 92, pp. 25-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.009
  89. Tsai M.T., Huang Y.C. (2008). Exploratory learning and new product performance: The moderating role of cognitive skills and environmental uncertainty. Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 19, pp. 83-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.hitech.2008.10.001
  90. Turner N., Swart J., Maylor H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 317–332. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x
  91. Tushman M.L., O’Reilly C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, vol. 38, pp. 8-30. DOI: 10.2307/41165852
  92. UN (2002), Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002. United Nations, New York.
  93. Wang H., Li J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, vol. 34, n. 5, pp. 925-951. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321547
  94. Wong Y.J., Lee C.Y., Chang S.C. (2017). CEO overconfidence and ambidextrous innovation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 24, n. 3, pp. 414-430. DOI: 10.1177/1548051817692329
  95. World Bank (1992). World development report 1992: Development and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
  96. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
  97. Zahra S., Neubaum D.O., Huse M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, vol. 26, n. 5, pp. 947-976. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00064-7
  98. Zeng D., Hu J., Ouyang T. (2017). Managing innovation paradox in the sustainable innovation ecosystem: A case study of ambidextrous capability in a focal firm. Sustainability, vol. 9, n. 11, 2091. DOI: 10.3390/su9112091
  99. Zhang J.Q., Zhu H., Ding H. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: an empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 114, n. 3, pp. 381–392. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0
  100. Zhao X.F., Wen J. (2011). Board of directors governance and technological innovation: theory and evidence. Modern Economic Science, vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 110-116.

  • An integrative framework for supply chain rating: from financial-based to ESG-based rating models Domenico Sardanelli, Lucilla Bittucci, Francesco Mirone, Stefano Marzioni, in Total Quality Management & Business Excellence /2022 pp.1
    DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2022.2069557

Maria Vincenza Ciasullo, Raffaella Montera, Alex Douglas, Sostenibilità ambientale e indipendenza del Consiglio di Amministrazione: Quali effetti sull’innovazione ambidestra? in "CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES" 1/2020, pp 41-63, DOI: 10.3280/cgrds1-2020oa10134