Identifying the contribution of technology innovation in driving sustainability in higher educational institutions through political influence, performance-based budgeting, organizational culture

Figures & data

Figure 1. Framework of the study.

Source: Authors' Construction.

Table 1. Source of measures.

Constructs	Number of Items	Sources
Political Influence	7	Gu et al. (2019), Wu and Boateng (2010), and Xiao et al. (2004)
Performance-based Budget	11	Pratolo et al. (2020)
Organizational Culture	7	Gao (2017), Deshpandé and Farley (2004), Ogbonna and Harris (2000)
Technology Innovation	5	Dey et al. (2020)
Environmental Performance	6	Iranmanesh et al. (2019)
Social Performance	5	Iranmanesh et al. (2019)
Economic Performance	6	Iranmanesh et al. (2019)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Female	214	45
	Male	258	55
	Total	472	100
Age	30 or less years	124	26
	31–40 years	194	41
	41–50 years	95	20
	51 and above	59	13
	Total	472	100
Size (Number of Employees)	Less than 100	95	20
	101–250	191	40
	251–450	99	21
	More than 450	87	18
	Total	472	100
Industry	Automobile	129	27
	Electronics	173	37
	Chemical	94	20
	Pharmaceutical	49	10
	Others	27	6
	Total	472	100

Source: Authors estimation.

Table 3. Measurement model results.

Variables	Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
Political Influence	PIN1	0.855	0.827	0.802	0.525
	PIN2	0.885
	PIN3	0.802
	PIN4	0.848
	PIN5	0.750
	PIN6	0.713
	PIN7	0.844
Performance-based Budget	PBB1	0.888	0.782	0.741	0.622
	PBB2	0.751
	PBB3	0.774
	PBB4	0.854
	PBB5	0.837
	PBB6	0.718
	PBB7	0.792
	PBB8	0.828
	PBB9	0.837
	PBB10	0.846
	PBB11	0.817
Organizational Culture	CLT1	0.795	0.722	0.710	0.527
	CLT2	0.743
	CLT3	0.730
	CLT4	0.844
	CLT5	0.711
	CLT6	0.867
	CLT7	0.794
Technology Innovation	TIN1	0.801	0.811	0.739	0.606
	TIN2	0.770
	TIN3	0.888
	TIN4	0.758
	TIN5	0.754
Environmental Performance	ENP1	0.899	0.747	0.794	0.588
	ENP2	0.832
	ENP3	0.800
	ENP4	0.724
	ENP5	0.882
	ENP6	0.755
Social Performance	SOP1	0.728	0.747	0.796	0.550
	SOP2	0.766
	SOP3	0.735
	SOP4	0.897
	SOP5	0.826
Economic Performance	ECP1	0.774	0.762	0.727	0.558
	ECP2	0.717
	ECP3	0.875
	ECP4	0.768
	ECP5	0.905
	ECP6	0.837

Source: Authors estimation.

Table 4. Results of loadings and cross loadings.

Variable	PIN	PBB	CLT	TIN	ENP	SOP	ECP
Political Influence	0.855	0.392	0.385	0.299	0.278	0.384	0.227
	0.885	0.340	0.303	0.257	0.319	0.252	0.336
	0.802	0.276	0.395	0.235	0.217	0.300	0.260
	0.848	0.379	0.350	0.323	0.248	0.375	0.264
	0.750	0.250	0.361	0.306	0.235	0.235	0.241
	0.713	0.278	0.374	0.288	0.240	0.259	0.242
	0.844	0.280	0.251	0.274	0.268	0.317	0.293
Performance-based Budget	0.374	0.888	0.215	0.327	0.390	0.288	0.342
	0.274	0.751	0.391	0.213	0.318	0.220	0.384
	0.310	0.774	0.232	0.226	0.243	0.265	0.231
	0.315	0.854	0.245	0.388	0.274	0.315	0.301
	0.265	0.837	0.271	0.225	0.315	0.281	0.264
	0.305	0.718	0.363	0.236	0.216	0.271	0.233
	0.329	0.792	0.237	0.276	0.260	0.347	0.237
	0.353	0.828	0.352	0.382	0.359	0.353	0.318
	0.221	0.837	0.214	0.385	0.382	0.381	0.379
	0.304	0.846	0.313	0.355	0.242	0.258	0.240
	0.241	0.817	0.376	0.210	0.351	0.306	0.278
Organizational Culture	0.279	0.240	0.795	0.251	0.358	0.354	0.224
	0.295	0.220	0.743	0.230	0.319	0.299	0.297
	0.270	0.215	0.730	0.345	0.372	0.243	0.357
	0.334	0.339	0.844	0.293	0.278	0.285	0.339
	0.229	0.234	0.711	0.346	0.381	0.293	0.215
	0.311	0.249	0.867	0.219	0.291	0.377	0.276
	0.276	0.357	0.794	0.359	0.361	0.360	0.244
Technology Innovation	0.284	0.225	0.291	0.801	0.387	0.361	0.277
	0.343	0.236	0.237	0.770	0.368	0.355	0.231
	0.373	0.227	0.338	0.888	0.388	0.250	0.246
	0.243	0.373	0.302	0.758	0.235	0.348	0.214
	0.357	0.381	0.273	0.754	0.216	0.334	0.311
Environmental Performance	0.372	0.235	0.372	0.295	0.899	0.211	0.336
	0.380	0.256	0.363	0.342	0.832	0.384	0.330
	0.231	0.269	0.219	0.384	0.800	0.229	0.269
	0.356	0.329	0.379	0.382	0.724	0.260	0.394
	0.369	0.392	0.331	0.269	0.882	0.385	0.314
	0.264	0.220	0.321	0.220	0.755	0.249	0.296
Social Performance	0.368	0.357	0.360	0.311	0.231	0.728	0.224
	0.227	0.216	0.370	0.339	0.319	0.766	0.213
	0.385	0.310	0.314	0.351	0.218	0.735	0.327
	0.393	0.272	0.231	0.289	0.294	0.897	0.266
	0.350	0.326	0.214	0.225	0.364	0.826	0.313
Economic Performance	0.324	0.379	0.341	0.217	0.298	0.336	0.774
	0.310	0.346	0.380	0.256	0.388	0.377	0.717
	0.281	0.229	0.263	0.299	0.271	0.245	0.875
	0.218	0.288	0.395	0.351	0.302	0.386	0.768
	0.294	0.256	0.323	0.364	0.245	0.220	0.905
	0.316	0.260	0.327	0.330	0.331	0.281	0.837

Source: Authors estimation.

Table 5. Discriminant validity Fornell-Larcker criterion.

	PIN	PBB	CLT	TIN	ENP	SOP	ECP
PIN	0.724
PBB	0.386	0.789
CLT	0.461	0.490	0.726
TIN	0.412	0.331	0.594	0.779
ENP	0.496	0.366	0.450	0.333	0.767
SOP	0.365	0.346	0.446	0.483	0.517	0.742
ECP	0.448	0.342	0.421	0.364	0.369	0.371	0.747

Source: Authors estimation.

Table 6. Results of HTMT ratio of correlations.

	PIN	PBB	CLT	TIN	ENP	SOP	ECP
PIN
PBB	0.468
CLT	0.516	0.581
TIN	0.521	0.714	0.435
ENP	0.550	0.782	0.444	0.515
SOP	0.740	0.599	0.761	0.642	0.743
ECP	0.498	0.793	0.569	0.765	0.648	0.672

Source: Authors estimation.

Table 7. Predictive power of construct.

	R-Square	Q-Square
TIN	0.265	0.119
ENP	0.289	0.119
ECP	0.148	0.092
SOP	0.165	0.105

Source: Authors estimation.

Figure 2. Output of the PLS-SEM.

Source: Authors' Construction.

Table 8. Results of path coefficients.

Hypothesised Path	Path Coefficient	C.R	P-Value	Remarks
PIN → TIN	0.327	13.384	0.000	Supported
PBB → TIN	0.192	7.872	0.000	Supported
CLT → TIN	0.263	7.857	0.000	Supported
PIN → ENP	0.265	7.447	0.000	Supported
PIN → SCP	0.147	7.197	0.000	Supported
CLT → ECP	0.169	10.106	0.000	Supported
TIN → ENP	0.223	6.351	0.000	Supported
TIN → ECP	0.169	9.621	0.000	Supported
TIN → SCP	0.229	7.360	0.000	Supported
ECP → ENP	0.354	11.874	0.000	Supported
ECP → SOP	0.266	10.586	0.000	Supported

Note: Level of significance (5% i.e. 0.050).

Source: Authors’ estimation.

Gu, X., Hasan, I., & Zhu, Y. (2019). Political influence and financial flexibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance, 99, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.12.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, J., & Boateng, A. (2010). Factors influencing changes in Chinese management accounting practices. Journal of Change Management, 10(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.493303

 Google Scholar

Xiao, Z. J., Weetman, P., & Sun, M. (2004). Political influence and coexistence of a uniform accounting system and accounting standards: Recent developments in China. Abacus, 40(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2004.00151.x

 Google Scholar

Pratolo, S., Sofyani, H., & Anwar, M. (2020). Performance-based budgeting implementation in higher education institutions: Determinants and impact on quality. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1786315. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1786315

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (2004). Organisational culture, market orientation, innovativeness, and firm performance: An international research odyssey. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 3–22.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organisational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766–788.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S., & Abdelaziz, F. B. (2020). The impact of lean management practices and sustainably-oriented innovation on sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: Empirical evidence from the UK. British Journal of Management, 31(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12388

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iranmanesh, M., Zailani, S., Hyun, S., Ali, M., & Kim, K. (2019). Impact of lean manufacturing practices on firms’ sustainable performance: Lean culture as a moderator. Sustainability, 11(4), 1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041112

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar