Environmental innovations and sustainability practices of manufacturing ﬁ rms in Uganda

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the pivotal role of environmental innovations in driving sustainability practices within mediumandlarge manufacturing ﬁ rmsoperatingin Uganda. Design/methodology/approach – Using a cross-sectional and quantitative methodology, data were collected through a questionnaire survey involving 208 manufacturing companies. The smart partial least squares pathmodellingtechnique wasused fortheanalysis. Findings – The analysis unveils signi ﬁ cant and positive associations. Speci ﬁ cally, product innovation exhibits a robust and af ﬁ rmative relationship with sustainability practices. Similarly, the correlation between process innovation and sustainability practices emerges as statistically signi ﬁ cant. Moreover, the ﬁ ndings underscore the noteworthy and constructive predictive in ﬂ uence of environmental innovation on sustainability practices. Practical implications – These empirical results present substantial implications for theoretical frameworks and practical applications. From a policy perspective, the ﬁ ndings emphasise the importance of incentivising eco product and eco process innovations as potential drivers of eco-friendly practices. On the managerial front, strategic resource allocation and the adoption of integrated environmental innovation strategies are advocated, with the ultimate goal of enhancing sustainable business approaches within Uganda ’ s manufacturing subsector. Originality/value – To the best of the authors ’ knowledge, this study represents the inaugural attempt to investigate the role of environmental innovations in elucidating sustainability practices within a least developed country. Notably, while all dimensions demonstrate signi ﬁ cance, it is noteworthy that product innovation emergesas themore substantialcontributorto thepromotionof sustainability practices.


Introduction
In recent times, the global landscape has become fraught with a pressing challenge, prominently characterised by environmental pollution and climate change, as underscored by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP, 2023).The degradation of the Earth's natural environment and the subsequent ecological imbalances have witnessed a noticeable escalation.This situation has amplified the appeals emanating from academia, practitioners, policymakers and social movements, all advocating for a departure from conventional, unsustainable practices (Martin et al., 2021;Whiteman et al., 2013).Moreover, human activities, primarily characterised by the release of greenhouse gases, have undeniably played a central role in driving global warming.This is substantiated by empirical evidence revealing that the global surface temperature has risen by approximately 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels during the period of 2011-2020(UNEP, 2023)).The escalation of global greenhouse gas emissions persists, underscored by a complex interplay of historical and ongoing factors stemming from unsustainable energy consumption, land utilisation and changes, varied lifestyles, consumption patterns and production practices.These factors exhibit disparities not only across different regions but also within and between countries, highlighting the multifaceted nature of this global challenge (UNEP, 2023).
Thus, effectively addressing this challenge necessitates a concerted global effort and an unwavering commitment from businesses spanning various sectors.Moreover, governments worldwide are intensifying their efforts to compel firms to adopt sustainability practices (SPs).However, it is evident that not all firms exhibit equal dedication to their environmental obligations, with some encountering difficulties in achieving comparable levels of SPs (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2020).To this end, we pose a pivotal question with potentially profound implications: Q1.Can the concept of environmental innovation (EI) offer valuable insights into deciphering the disparities witnessed in firms' dedication and contributions to SPs?
At the heart of this discussion lies the essential role that SPs play in safeguarding the environment and addressing the consequences of climate change.These practices encompass a wide array of approaches designed to decrease emissions, enhance the efficiency of resource utilisation and diminish the creation of waste.This standpoint concurs with the observations detailed in National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA, 2019).Beyond their ecological implications, the adoption of environmentally friendly initiatives also yields various advantages, including improved operational efficiency, costeffectiveness and enhanced competitiveness (Desore and Narula, 2018).Additionally, these initiatives contribute to long-term economic growth.According to NEMA (2019), the implementation of SPs can result in better working conditions, better occupational health, increased social inclusivity and general community well-being, in addition to economic benefits.Hence, the integration of SPs within Uganda's manufacturing subsector holds the potential to chart a path towards a more sustainable developmental trajectory.
According to the NEMA (2019) report, the manufacturing subsector in Uganda significantly contributes to environmental degradation and sustainability challenges.This report highlights several pressing issues, including alarming levels of air and water pollution as well as the generation of substantial waste within the manufacturing processes.These activities have resulted in adverse consequences, such as ozone layer depletion and reduced material efficiency, thereby negatively affecting industrial productivity.The NEMA report underscores the urgency of addressing these critical issues to mitigate their environmental impact and enhance the sustainability of Uganda's manufacturing sector.To tackle these challenges effectively, Ugandan manufacturers must take proactive measures, specifically through the adoption of SPs.This viewpoint is consistent with the conclusions drawn from the recent research conducted by Alinda et al. (2023), who urge companies to adopt EI as a means to facilitate the incorporation of SPs.

APJIE
Second, we delve into the unexplored terrain of assessing the influence of EI on the implementation of SPs.This uncharted research question holds significance, as despite the recognised importance of robust EI in engendering competitive advantages (S anchez-Torn e et al., 2020), this particular relationship has not garnered attention in the existing literature.Third, our empirical enquiry is situated within a distinct context, examining a sample of Ugandan manufacturing firms.This unique research setting sets our study apart from prior studies, particularly those centred around EI, which have predominantly focused on developed economies or specific industrial sectors.
The paper's organisation unfolds as follows: Section 2 presents a thorough review of significant scholarly contributions, elucidating the development of the hypotheses.In Section 3, we offer an in-depth explanation of the research methodology.Section 4 elaborates on the empirical findings of the study, while Section 5 presents a comprehensive exploration of the ensuing discourse.Our overarching conclusions and corresponding implications are discussed in Section 6.

Literature review and hypothesis development 2.1 Theoretical underpinnings
In the literature, SP often responds to EI because new products and processes in manufacturing encourage firms to implement SPs (Afshari et al., 2020).The primary aim of this paper is to explore SP in Uganda using dynamic capability theory and quantitative analysis to investigate the connection between EI and SPs.Dynamic capability, which is discussed later, serves as the lens through which this correlation is examined.
Following Teece et al. (1997), the dynamic capability view extends resource-based theory by introducing dynamic capabilities.These represent a firm's inherent ability to effectively integrate, construct, and reconfigure both internal and external competencies, alongside a mix of resources and proficiencies.In dynamic contexts, these capabilities are crucial, enabling firms to continually reallocate resources to navigate the complex business environment.The importance of innovation capability is evident in this framework, particularly when firms confront changing technologies and market structures.This is particularly true in the context of EI, which encompasses eco product and eco process innovations tailored to addressing sustainability challenges.EI has been conceptualised as a dynamic capability that reflects firms' capacity to innovate within a dynamic environment (Huang and Li, 2017;Qiu et al., 2020).
At its core, dynamic capabilities encapsulate an enterprise's intrinsic potential to actively shape, reshape, synthesise and re-synthesise its asset infrastructure.This inherent flexibility empowers firms to adapt, cultivate and strategically harness internal and external competencies within their unique context.As highlighted by Teece et al. (1997), these capabilities enable firms to navigate the fluid external environment, shaping and capitalising on their strategic advantage.In essence, the dynamic capability framework, grounded in dynamic capabilities, provides a sophisticated paradigm for enterprises to align with the evolving business landscape and catalyse positive influences and innovative initiatives within this ever-evolving milieu.

2.2
The concept of environmental innovations EI involves integrating ethical considerations into products, processes and organisational frameworks (Chen et al., 2006a).Its characteristics, determinants and typologies guide environmental stewardship decisions.EI spans technological, organisational, institutional, and social facets (Rennings, 2000).Technological aspects include pollution prevention technologies, while organisational facets involve tools such as ISO 14001.Institutional APJIE manifestations include bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and social aspects encompass shifts in consumption and lifestyles.EI's breadth warrants multifaceted exploration, from narrow definitions (Chen et al., 2006b) to those transcending firm boundaries (OECD, 2009).EI definitions focus on mitigating environmental impacts through products, processes or management (Rennings and Zwick, 2002;Kemp and Pearson, 2008), aiming to reduce ecological footprints.According to Chen et al. (2006a), "green innovations" span hardware and software linked to green products or processes, including energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste recycling, green design and corporate management.Horbach (2008) view EI as novel processes, techniques, systems, or products for environmental harm mitigation.Rennings (2000) defines it as stakeholder actions that formulate, adopt or implement ideas, behaviours, products and processes for environmental pressure alleviation and ecological sustainability.

The concept of sustainability practices
Sustainability embodies the fusion of environmental, social and economic dimensions (Haanes, 2016).Elkington's (1997) conceptualisation of sustainability reinforces these interconnected facets, while Leung and Rosenthal (2019) stress the importance of harmonising them holistically.Nasrollahi et al. (2020) distinguish weak and strong sustainability orientations, the former focusing on planet, people and profits, and the latter expanding to industrialisation and technology, consistent with Nave et al.'s (2021) green economy concept.Schaltegger and Burritt (2018) define SPs as deliberate strategies that merge environmental responsibility, economic advantages and social progress, echoed by Bansal and Roth (2000), who underscore policy alignment with stakeholder expectations.Lozano (2008) concurs, characterising SPs as seamless integration of economic, environmental and social concerns.In Uganda's manufacturing context, entities contribute to sustainability challenges through emissions, waste and consumption of non-renewable energy (NEMA, 2019).Addressing this requires SPs, which drive cleaner production, resource efficiency, waste management and renewable energy (Kaawaase et al., 2021;NEMA, 2019).Such strategies align with environmental preservation and socio-economic well-being goals.

Environmental innovations and sustainability practices
EI is a pivotal driver of SPs in manufacturing firms, predominantly through eco product and process innovations.The literature underscores the fusion of innovation and sustainability, underscoring their significance for SP enhancement (Silvestre, 2015a, b;Kibet and Korir, 2013).Drawing from dynamic capability theory, innovation serves as a catalyst for transformative shifts across sectors, enabling the adoption of sustainability initiatives (Huisingh et al., 2013).The practical application of innovations, especially environmental product and process innovations, reshapes social, economic and environmental performance (Smerecnik and Anderson, 2011;Silvestre, 2015a, b).Product innovation, particularly environmental variants, drives SPs (Johansson and Ramanathan, 2016).Eco-friendly, energy-efficient and resource-efficient products offer the potential to enhance SPs by curbing energy consumption, emissions and raw material waste (Johansson and Ramanathan, 2016).However, considering the entire product lifecycle is vital because some innovations may inadvertently increase consumption and environmental impacts (Luchs et al., 2011).Coupling environmental product innovation with manufacturing improvements is essential (Grinza et al., 2018), as is aligning it with customer demand and long-term sustainability goals (Teixeira et al., 2020).Similarly, process innovation, which addresses novel methods and operational efficiencies, is crucial for SPs (Cagliano et al., 2013).

Sustainability practices
Environmental process innovation focuses on minimising impacts, enhancing efficiency and fostering sustainability (Johansson and Ramanathan, 2016).In addition, clean technology and renewable energy adoption reduce energy use, raw material consumption and fossil fuel dependence (Johansson and Ramanathan, 2016) et al., 2018;Grinza et al., 2018;Teixeira et al., 2020).However, the relationship between product innovation and enhanced SPs is not always straightforward.Environmental product innovation, as outlined by Luchs et al. (2011), can improve environmental outcomes, yet may unintentionally drive increased consumption, leading to negative ecological effects.To comprehensively assess a product's environmental impact, scholars emphasise accounting for its entire lifecycle, including its usage and end-oflife phases.Grinza et al. (2018) shed light on the automobile sector, revealing that although companies craft environmentally conscious vehicles, associated manufacturing processes exhibit significant environmentally harmful effects, raising the importance of synchronising manufacturing improvements with product innovation for substantial SP enhancement.Teixeira et al.'s (2020) findings offer another perspective: despite prevalent environmental product innovation in the electronics sector, a distinct impact on SPs was not discerned.Plausible explanations include consumer demand gaps for eco-friendly products and a preference for short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability.Therefore, we posit that: H2.There is a significant positive relationship between product innovation and SPs.  and fostering sustainability (Cagliano et al., 2013).This industry commitment to SPs is further emphasised by practices amplified, as exemplified by the adoption of clean technology and renewable energy (Johansson and Ramanathan, 2016).Although the literature largely substantiates positive impacts of eco process innovations on SPs, Azapagic and Perdan (2011) reveal cost challenges in implementing SPs, Hong et al. (2016) identifies context-specific practices, stressing the need for tailored approaches based on local conditions and Michelini et al. (2019) discuss modest outcomes accentuating the importance of holistic perspectives in addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability.In their recent study, Umar et al. (2023) demonstrate the significant impact of adopting blockchain technology on green manufacturing (GM).Furthermore, the study highlights the substantial contribution of GM to enhancing overall business sustainability.These perspectives motivate the following hypothesis: H3.There is a significant positive relationship between process innovation and SPs.

Research design, population and sample
This study used a cross-sectional and quantitative research design.The cross-sectional approach involves collecting data from a sample at a specific moment to examine patterns and relationships.This design allowed the researcher to gather data and responses from manufacturing companies in a single instance, thereby enhancing the credibility and applicability of the findings.The quantitative methodology was chosen to quantify data and draw generalisable conclusions from a representative sample of M&L manufacturing firms, guided by the principles outlined by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007).In addressing the challenges posed by the manufacturing subsector in Uganda, which comprises around 3,859 small businesses often lacking clear addresses and contact details (UBOS, 2018), the study targeted M&L manufacturing firms in the central, eastern, northern and western regions, totalling 713 enterprises.From this pool, a sample of 256 firms affiliated with the Uganda Manufacturers' Association was determined using Yamane's (1967) method.Accordingly, the simplified formula for proportions according to Yamane is given as follows: where n is the required sample size, N is the population size and E is the acceptable sampling error (tolerable error); a 95% confidence level and p ¼ 0.05 are assumed.Thus, the sample size of this study is computed as follows: Firm classification as medium or large relied on parameters such as annual turnover and workforce size, following the criteria set by the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA, 2020).Medium-sized firms had an annual turnover between UGX 360m (approximately US$97,000) and UGX 1.2bn (approximately US$323,000), employing 51-100 individuals.Large firms exceeded UGX 1.2bn in turnover and employed over 100 employees.Employing a stratified sampling approach, the researcher allocated a total sample of 256 firms across the four regions, as presented in Table 1.The survey focused on manufacturing firms as the unit of Sustainability practices analysis, with production managers, chief finance officers, human resource managers, operations managers and environmental managers being surveyed due to their direct involvement in sustainability decisions.Their diverse roles ensure a comprehensive view of SPs, including production, finance, employee engagement, operations and environmental compliance.This study employed purposive sampling to select individuals based on their relevance and involvement in sustainability, aiming to capture varied insights within manufacturing firms.
The results presented in Table 1 indicate that a significant majority of the manufacturing firms surveyed were located in the central region, representing 90.4% of the total.This concentration of firms in the central region can potentially be attributed to factors such as proximity to markets and the availability of resources.The favourable geographic location of the central region likely contributes to the accessibility of markets and resources, making it an attractive choice for establishing manufacturing operations.

Demographic characteristics
The findings in Table 2 highlight key aspects of the surveyed manufacturing firms' composition and leadership.Notably, 57.2% of respondents were within the 36-45 age group, reflecting experienced individuals in leadership roles.This age bracket's prevalence stems from industry expertise and career advancement, which aligns with a pivotal professional growth phase.Additionally, 54.6% of the participants held bachelor's degrees, indicating an educated workforce adept at comprehending and engaging in SPs.A gender disparity was obvious, with men at 60.6% and women at 39.4%, underscoring the need for gender diversity to encompass inclusive sustainability perspectives (Alinda et al., 2023).In terms of experience, a significant 61.9% reported 5-10 years of manufacturing familiarity, suggesting their grasp of sustainability's importance.Among managers, human resource managers (30.3%) and operations managers (21.9%) significantly contributed to sustainability efforts, displaying their pivotal role in promoting SPs across functions.Notably, environmental managers (8.8%) formed a smaller portion, implying that sustainability was interwoven into broader managerial duties.
Table 3 displays the characteristics of the firms surveyed.Table 3 highlights the surveyed manufacturing firms' key characteristics.A significant proportion (88.5%) were classified as medium-sized (51-100 employees), in alignment with local standards.Notably, 90.4% were located in the central region, likely due to proximity to resources and markets.The distribution of firms across 5-10 years (36.5%) and 10-16 years (31.3%) of existence suggests established structures for SPs.The food and beverage sector exhibited the largest representation, signifying its recognition of responsibility due to its direct impact on human sustenance.The textile, clothing and footwear industry's

APJIE
prominence reflects awareness of sustainability's importance in meeting fundamental needs, while the limited presence of the printing sector indicates the potential for improvement.

Questionnaire and variables measurement
Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire featuring closed-ended items, using a six-point Likert scale inspired by Spector (1992), to ensure clarity in responses.This approach aimed to foster distinct expressions of agreement or disagreement with the research questions.The chosen six-point scale aimed to enhance data quality by minimising ambiguity.The questionnaire method was deliberately chosen for its efficiency in reaching a diverse respondent pool and deriving average ratings.The questionnaire's design drew from the relevant literature on EI and SPs.EI was operationalised using insights from Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. (2010) and Cheng and Shiu (2012), while SP encompassed environmental, social and economic dimensions based on Chow and Chen (2012), Høgevold et al. (2015) and Yacob et al. (2019).Detailed questionnaire questions are available in the Appendix.

Control variables
Existing research has pointed out the potential impact of firm-specific factors on a company's pursuit of sustainability objectives (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2020).Additionally, Bartov et al. (2000) underscore the significance of considering confounding

Sustainability practices
variables to prevent unwarranted rejections of research hypotheses that might otherwise have been corroborated.In alignment with this perspective, the current study takes into consideration the inherent characteristics of a firm's geographical location and its ownership as controlling variables.The study model is depicted in Figure 1 for reference.

Validity and reliability
In the realm of research, validity pertains to the degree to which a measurement accurately reflects the intended concept it seeks to assess.To ensure the precision of the survey questions employed in this study, experts from academia, policymaking and research in the

APJIE
field of SPs were consulted.These experts evaluated the appropriateness of the survey questions using a rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).The input and ratings provided by these experts were used to compute the content validity index (CVI) for each variable being investigated.The resulting CVI scores surpassed the established threshold of 0.7, signifying the robust content validity of the survey instrument (Field, 2009).The expert feedback and CVI scores collectively affirmed the questionnaire's validity across all examined variables.Similarly, the instrument's reliability, which gauges its consistency in measuring a specific concept, was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.The calculated Cronbach's alpha values for the study's variables exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7, as proposed by Nunnally (1978), confirming a high level of internal consistency (as depicted in Table 4).This underscores that the survey questions consistently and reliably gauged the intended concepts in a steadfast manner.

Data analysis
The process of data collection, organisation, modification, coding, capturing and analysis was carried out using SmartPLS structural equation modelling (SEM) Version 3. Prior to analysis, the data underwent cleaning procedures using SPSS Version 23, following the recommended protocols outlined by Field (2009).Instances of missing data, constituting less than 5% of the dataset, were identified through thorough case, variable, and value examinations.Linear interpolation was then used to fill these gaps, thereby mitigating potential reductions in statistical power and potential inaccuracies in the results.To rectify any discrepancies, incorrect item entries were cross-tabulated and assigned numerical codes during the data entry phase.The refined data set was subsequently subjected to analysis using SmartPLS Version 3 (Hair et al., 2017).In light of the study's sample size of 208 manufacturing firms, SmartPLS was selected due to its appropriateness for larger samples.Partial least squares (PLS) path modelling, according to the guidance of Fornell and Bookstein (1982), does not rely on assumptions about scale measurement or population characteristics, distinguishing it from some alternative methods.The analysis encompassed both the measurement (outer) and structural (inner) models, in alignment with Henseler et al.'s (2014) recommendation, which enables a comprehensive interpretation of PLS-SEM outcomes.The structural model explored the relationships between the explanatory and criterion latent variables, while the measurement model examined the connections between indicators and their corresponding latent variables while upholding considerations of reliability and validity, as outlined by Hair et al. (2017).

Sustainability practices
The selection of SmartPLS for a sample size of 208 is justified by its capacity to accommodate larger samples while providing reliable results.While SmartPLS is often chosen for smaller samples, it also remains effective and robust for larger samples, offering advantages such as model flexibility, robustness in handling complex relationships and the ability to analyse both reflective and formative constructs effectively (Hair et al., 2017(Hair et al., , 2013)).Furthermore, its suitability for exploratory research and its ability to accommodate nonnormal data distribution make it an appropriate choice for a sample size of 208 (Henseler et al., 2014;Hair et al., 2017).

Measurement models
In the realm of construct validity, two distinct forms, namely, convergent and discriminant validity, were meticulously investigated, as highlighted by Neuman (2007).To assess convergent validity, we used the metric of average variance expected (AVE).The outcomes, as presented in Table 4, distinctly demonstrate that all the calculated AVE values surpassed the accepted threshold of 0.5, as per established norms.This finding concurs with the existence of convergent validity, as discussed by Henseler et al. (2014).Discriminant validity refers to how well a measurement accurately captures a specific concept it is meant to assess, without being influenced by other concepts.Normally, both convergent validity (how well indicators of a concept converge) and discriminant validity are simultaneously evaluated for related concepts.To establish discriminant validity, an indicator's outer loadings on its intended concept should be higher than its correlations with other concepts (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).In this study, Tables 5 and 6 confirm that discriminant validity requirements were met.To ensure the measurement tool's reliability, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficient and composite reliability, assessed via SmartPLS.As shown in Table 4, the instrument demonstrated good internal consistency, with alpha coefficients and composite reliability values for each variable surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;Nunnally, 1978).In this study, composite reliability was used, given the different outer loadings of the indicator variables (Hair et al., 2017).
Before conducting the factor analysis, a preliminary assessment was carried out to ensure the data's suitability and reliability for exploratory factor analysis.The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy was used to evaluate data appropriateness, while the Bartlett test was used to assess correlations among variable components.KMO values greater than 0.7 and statistically significant Bartlett's test results (p < 0.05) indicate that the sample is suitable and appropriate for analysis, as outlined by Field (2009) and Kaiser (1974).The results for the variables under investigation are

APJIE
presented in Table 6.Factor analysis was performed on the data using principal axis factoring with orthogonal varimax rotation.Using an eigenvalue cutoff of 1.0, two factors (eco product innovation and eco process innovation) emerged for EI, explaining a cumulative eigenvalue of 63.880, as depicted in Table 6.The factors retained for EI are outlined in Table 6, with eco product innovation and eco process innovation exhibiting eigenvalues of 6.854 and 4.005, respectively.The total variance explained was 63.880%, aligning with the recommendations by Field (2009) and Hair et al. (2017).This confirms the presence of discriminant validity among the various components of EI.Table 7 presents the findings from the exploratory factor analysis, which was conducted to evaluate the factors that were retained in the study for SPs.
Table 7 presents the extracted factors corresponding to SPs.These factors demonstrated eigenvalues of 4.532, 3.603 and 1.081, collectively accounting for 65.827% of the total explained variance.This adherence to the criteria established by Field (2009) and Hair et al. (2017) substantiates the existence of discriminant validity within the realm of SPs.
Figure 2 illustrates that each dimension of EI holds significant estimations, underscoring the significance of eco product and eco process innovations in comprehending EI.In line with Hair et al.'s (2017) recommendation of a minimum value of 0.400, all item loadings exceeded this threshold.Consequently, the observed variables serve as excellent indicators of their respective latent variables.Notably, eco product innovation (b ¼ 0.703, p < 0.05) demonstrated the highest efficacy in elucidating EI, followed by process innovation, as indicated by the measurement model.The combined impact of these two factors comprehensively accounts for 99% of the observed variance in EI.
As depicted in Figure 3, the dimensions associated with SPs exhibited noteworthy estimates, signifying the pivotal role of social, economic and environmental SPs in  To unveil the correlations among the constructs examined in this study, the bootstrapping procedure was employed, accompanied by pertinent t-statistics and path coefficients (Wong, 2013).The primary objective of using bootstrapping was to assess the significance of loading and path coefficients.The outcomes of this significance testing, relating to two specific hypotheses, are depicted in Figure 4, as well as detailed in Tables 8 and 9.
Based on the insights presented in Figure 4 and Table 8, EI elucidated approximately 60.9% of the variability observed in SPs.Among the individual variables, as depicted in Table 9, eco product innovation (b ¼ 0.573, p < 0.05) emerged as the most influential predictor, exhibiting significant predictive power.Process innovation also contributed to this relationship, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent.
Table 11 displays the structural model estimations for EI and the implementation of environmental SPs.
Based on the information conveyed in Figure 5 and Table 10, it is evident that EI accounted for around 43.7% of the variance in environmental SPs.Among the specific variables, eco product innovation (b ¼ 0.457, t-statistic 5.553, p < 0.05) stood out as the most substantial predictor, displaying a noteworthy level of predictive strength (Table 11).Although process innovation also contributed to this association, its impact was slightly less pronounced.
Table 13 presents the structural model estimations pertaining to EI and the integration of social SPs.

Sustainability practices
Based on the insights presented in Figure 6 and Table 12, it is apparent that EI explained approximately 35.6% of the variability observed in social SPs.Among the individual variables, product Innovation (b ¼ 0.499, p < 0.05) emerged as the most influential predictor, demonstrating a notable degree of predictive power (Table 13).Process innovation also played a role in this relationship, although its influence was slightly less prominent.Table 14 presents the structural model estimations pertaining to EI and the integration of economic SPs.

APJIE
The insights derived from Figure 7 and Table 14 reveal that EI accounted for approximately 43% of the variability seen in economic SPs.Among the variables, eco product innovation (b ¼ 0.434, t-statistic 4.247, p < 0.05) emerged as the most influential predictor, demonstrating considerable predictive power (Table 15).Process innovation also contributed to this relationship, although to a slightly lesser extent.Furthermore, the findings in Table 9 support H2, demonstrating a significant relationship between eco product innovation and SPs within Uganda's manufacturing firms (b ¼ 0.573, t ¼ 7.710, p < 0.05).This emphasises the pivotal role of sustainability-focused eco product innovation in driving SPs within manufacturing firms.These innovative initiatives encompass sustainable product lines and design enhancements aimed at improving resource efficiency.

APJIE
Based on the results presented in Table 9, the investigation of H3 regarding the relationship between process innovation and the implementation of SPs among Ugandan manufacturing firms yielded a significant finding.The results indicate a statistically significant connection between process innovation and the integration of SPs (b ¼ 0.246, t ¼ 3.589, p < 0.05).This underscores the pivotal role of process innovation in driving the implementation of SPs within these firms.The analysis reveals that alterations and improvements in manufacturing processes, referred to as process innovation, profoundly impact the adoption of SPs.The significant coefficient (b ¼ 0.246) implies that with each increment in process innovation, there is a corresponding rise in the incorporation of SPs.The positive coefficient underscores a direct and favourable link, suggesting that engagement in process innovation activities enhances firms' ability to integrate sustainability measures into their operations.This underscores the strategic significance of prioritising process innovation as a means of promoting SPs within Uganda's manufacturing sector.

Discussion
The findings presented in Table 8 provide compelling evidence demonstrating that the combined influence of EI dimensions (eco product and eco process innovations) accounts for a substantial 60.1% of the variance in SPs, thus supporting H1.This research outcome also

Sustainability practices
establishes a significant positive relationship between eco product innovation and SPs within Uganda's manufacturing firms, thus confirming H2.Specific initiatives related to eco product innovation, such as eco-friendly product development, advanced production technologies and sustainability-focused product lines, play a pivotal role in driving the implementation of SPs.This attests to the strategic importance of aligning innovation efforts with environmental responsibility and consumer demand, ultimately fostering a corporate culture that embraces responsible business practices and contributes positively to the environment and society.These findings align with research by Chen et al. (2019) and Lee and Lee (2022), who emphasise the role of eco product innovation in driving SPs within manufacturing firms.Similarly, Richardson et al. (2021) highlight that firms prioritising eco product innovation aligned with sustainability objectives enhance market competitiveness and environmental impact.Moreover, Rajagopal and Bernardes (2019) argue that firms often prioritise eco product innovation over SPs due to the immediate market benefits and competitive advantage it provides.They assert that this focus on eco product innovation may divert resources away from implementing SPs, potentially hindering overall sustainability efforts.On the other hand, Shafqat et al. (2020) contend that eco product innovation can actually drive sustainability by enabling the introduction of eco-friendly products or enhancing the environmental performance of existing products.They assert that sustainability-driven eco product innovation can lead to improvements in resource efficiency, reduced waste and lower environmental impact.The alignment with dynamic capability theory, as proposed by Barney (1991) and advanced by Teece et al. (1997), becomes evident.The positive relationship between eco product innovation and SPs in Ugandan manufacturing firms aligns with dynamic capability theory, emphasising firms' adaptability and innovation for competitive advantage.Prioritising eco product innovation aligned with sustainability enhances dynamic capabilities, enabling firms to respond to evolving demands and regulations.These endeavours present substantial implications for advancing sustainability policies and actions, yielding positive outcomes.For instance, the incorporation of ecofriendly packaging materials alongside incentives for effective waste management by employees underscores the organisation's unwavering commitment to environmental and social responsibility.Moreover, the organisation's focus on equity, safety and community well-being underscores its comprehensive sustainability approach.These combined endeavours underscore the catalytic function of eco product innovation in embracing sustainability and fostering responsible community engagement.They also highlight the necessity of cultivating an innovation-driven organisational culture and investing in robust research and development activities, which are crucial for manufacturing firms.These measures not only enhance competitiveness but also amplify the firm's ability to strengthen and elevate its SPs, thereby fostering lasting environmental and social stewardship.
The results from H3 confirm the significant relationship between process innovation and SPs in Ugandan manufacturing firms, thus supporting H3.Process innovation efforts, such as upgrading manufacturing technology for environmental protection, energy-efficient technologies and sustainability-focused equipment replacement, directly translate into improved SPs.Equity, community safety, safety impact consideration and economic practices are also linked to process innovation frequency, indicating its role in driving SPs.These findings corroborate those of Johnson et al. (2018) and Smith et al. (2019), who support the positive influence of process innovation on SPs.Process innovation's impact on operational enhancements and sustainability outcomes aligns with Teece et al.'s (1997) dynamic capability theory, asserting that continuous adaptation and innovation enhance firm performance and SPs.Process innovation significantly correlates with implementing APJIE SPs in Ugandan manufacturing firms, emphasising its potential to drive operational improvements and efficiency, thereby contributing to sustainability outcomes.

Conclusion, limitations and future research
This study's primary objective was to assess the influence of EI on the SP of M&L manufacturing firms in Uganda.Additionally, we aimed to explore the distinct significance of various dimensions of EI, as previously identified in the existing literature, in shaping SPs.To achieve these objectives, we conducted a questionnaire survey involving 208 manufacturing firms in Uganda, with key personnel, such as production managers, operations managers, environmental managers, human resource managers and chief finance managers participating.Our findings affirm a significant relationship between EI and SPs.Notably, among the dimensions of EI, eco product innovation emerged as the most potent predictor of SP, while process innovation exhibited the least predictive potential within M&L manufacturing firms in Uganda.This research contributes to the theoretical framework of dynamic capability theory and to the broader literature on SP.It underscores the strategic importance of both eco product and process innovations as resources and toolkits for advancing sustainability within Ugandan M&L manufacturing firms.These EI components have the potential to serve as sources of inspiration for further research in the field.
This research significantly enriches the theoretical understanding of the intricate relationship between EI and SP within M&L manufacturing firms in Uganda.It advances our comprehension by shedding light on the dynamic nature of this connection, emphasising that EI serves as a strategic resource and toolkit for fostering SPs.In particular, our study underscores the critical roles played by both eco product and eco process innovations in shaping sustainable outcomes.This theoretical contribution offers a nuanced perspective on how organisations can effectively drive SP through innovation-driven strategies, providing a solid foundation for future scholarly investigations into the intricate mechanisms governing this interplay.
From a managerial perspective, our findings offer actionable insights that can guide manufacturing managers in Uganda towards more informed and eco-conscious decisionmaking.Notably, our research identifies eco product innovation as a powerful driver of SPs, underscoring the practical importance of investing in innovative product development.Managers can use this knowledge to prioritise sustainability initiatives, thus steering their organisations towards environmentally responsible practices.Furthermore, the emergence of process innovation as a less potent factor highlights the significance of continuously enhancing internal processes to promote sustainable operations.This underscores the necessity for a comprehensive approach to environmental management that encompasses both eco product and process innovations.
The implications of this study also extend to policymakers, aligning closely with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 (Sustainable Production and Consumption) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).Policymakers can leverage our findings to design more effective incentives and regulations aimed at promoting EI within the manufacturing sector.By doing so, they can actively facilitate the detachment of economic growth from environmental harm, fostering cleaner production and sustainable industrialisation.This aligns with global sustainability agendas and reinforces Uganda's commitment to addressing environmental challenges through innovation-driven policies.
Despite the valuable insights from this study, it is imperative to acknowledge its inherent limitations.The findings are primarily constrained by contextual specificity, focusing on a Sustainability practices specific subset of manufacturing firms operating within designated districts and under the umbrella of the Uganda Manufacturers' Association.As a result, generalising these findings to the broader manufacturing landscape, both within Uganda and internationally, must be approached with caution, given the diversity of industry dynamics, resource availability and regulatory environments across various contexts.To address these limitations and further advance our understanding of SP, future research should adopt more comprehensive and nuanced methodologies encompassing qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to delve deeper into the multifaceted dimensions that underlie SP.These approaches can illuminate intricate interplays between EI and sustainability outcomes, providing a richer and more holistic understanding of the subject matter.Moreover, research should explore the context-specific applications of EI in diverse manufacturing settings to identify tailored strategies and best practices for promoting sustainability within different industrial contexts, thereby enhancing the practical applicability of the findings.Additionally, future studies could delve into the economic implications of EI on SPs by examining its effects on financial performance, competitiveness and market positioning.Longitudinal research, tracking the evolution of SPs over time, would provide a temporal dimension, elucidating how EI contributes to sustainable outcomes and how organisations adapt to dynamic environmental and market conditions, guiding strategies for sustained sustainability and resilience building.Lastly, exploring the potential interplay between EI, government policies and industry standards would shed light on the regulatory dynamics influencing sustainability efforts within the manufacturing sector.In summary, while this study's limitations are acknowledged, they underscore the necessity for continued scholarly enquiry to comprehensively understand the complexities inherent in sustainability management within the manufacturing sector.Such insights have the potential to inform and guide organisations and policymakers towards more effective and informed strategies and initiatives.

APJIE
Figure 2. Measurement model for environmental innovations Figure 3. Measurement model for SPs Figure 5. Structural model for environmental innovations and environmental SPs Figure 7. Structural model for environmental Innovations and economic sustainability practices

B
Cheng and Shiu, 2012;Shashi et al., 2019;Xie et al., 2019) creating a new product -or improving an existing one -to meet customers' needs in a novel wayEVPI1Our firm frequently emphasises on developing new eco-products using new technologies to on developing new eco-products using state of the art technologies to enable easy , we have modified the product's design to make its use in terms of water consumption the product's design to reduce the quantity of materials required in its production Process innovations(Cheng and Shiu, 2012;Shashi et al., 2019;Xie et al., 2019) (Implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method)(Yacob et al., 2019) -the practice of interacting with the planet responsibly for future benefitSPEP1We apply effective strategies in improving water its emissions into the air (greenhouse gas and other substances)(Høgevold et al., 2015;Chow and Chen, 2012) -Identifying and managing business impacts on communitySPSS1In our firm, our production activities consider the community well-

Table 1 .
Geographical distribution of the firm