Search results

Introduction: In the modern period, environmental degradation has had negative effects on people’s health as well as the regular business environment. As a result, embracing a ‘Go Green’ philosophy has gained widespread acceptance among individuals and corporations worldwide. Going green is referred to as promoting eco-friendly ways and banks are essential in protecting the environment to improve our quality of life.

Purpose: This study will focus on the correlation between green banking practices (GBP), employee green behaviour (EGB), and banks’ sustainability performance and how this relationship will give a competitive edge in terms of sustainability to the banks adopting these GBP.

Methodology: EGB between GBP and bank sustainability occurrence is clarified by this study. The current study is descriptive and finds the relationship through previous literature reviews.

Findings: Employees are expected to be crucial in this transformation as the modern banking system adopts green banking initiatives and updates traditional banking processes. Employees help banks perform more sustainably by encouraging environmentally friendly banking practices.

Practical Implications: By understanding the mechanism, between GBP and bank sustainability, banks can adopt more effective strategies to enhance their sustainability performance while promoting environmentally friendly practices.

This study investigates how firms’ awareness of sustainability affects the revision of their internationalization strategy. Adopting a resource-based view (RBV) approach, the authors argue that sustainable-oriented firms have a higher propensity to de-internationalize (i.e., to go back to their home country) when confronted with the need to relocate foreign manufacturing subsidiaries, as the shortening of value chains would allow the reduction of transportation emissions and enhanced corporate image as green-oriented entities. Furthermore, the authors explore the role exerted by a stringent regulatory setting in the home country on the likelihood of de-internationalization. The empirical test conducted on a sample of relocations performed across European nations in 2002–2014 reveals that multinational enterprises (MNEs) – regardless of their sustainability orientation – have a higher probability to de-internationalize when their home countries have strict institutional contexts in place.

“First principles” of international business (IB) thinking should be applied systematically when assessing the functioning of internationally operating firms. The most important first principle is that entrepreneurially oriented firms seek to create, deliver and capture economic value through cross-border linkages. Such linkages invariably require complementary resources from a variety of parties with idiosyncratic vulnerabilities to be meshed. Starting from first principles allows bringing to light evidence-based insight. For instance, most companies are not global and even the world’s largest firms rarely change the location of key strategic functions. International new ventures (INVs), emerging economy multinational enterprises (MNEs) and family firms face unique vulnerabilities but also command resources that can be used to create value across borders. The quest for “optimal” international diversification appears to be a futile academic exercise, and in emerging economies with institutional voids, relational networks – and more broadly, informal institutions – are unlikely to function as scalable substitutes for formal institutions. In global value chains (GVCs), many lead firms and their partners have been able to craft governance mechanisms that reduce bounded rationality and bounded reliability challenges, and it is also critical for them to use governance as a tool to create entrepreneurial space. Finally, many of the world’s largest companies have been on successful trajectories toward reducing their climate change footprint for a few decades. But these firm-specific trajectories are fraught with challenges and cannot just be imposed via unilateral, macro-level targets decided upon by individuals and institutions lacking a clear understanding of innovation and capital expenditure processes in business.