Drivers and outcomes of sustainable marketing strategy in the African context: the role of competitive advantage and strategic proactivity as mediating and moderating variables

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Statistics of measurement model.

Research construct	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	FP	MR	RR	FR	GTe	SP	CA	EP	SMS
FP	0.961	0.862	0.413	0.964	0.928
MR	0.895	0.685	0.399	0.917	0.333	0.827
RR	0.929	0.765	0.454	0.942	0.378	0.610	0.875
FR	0.893	0.738	0.452	0.929	0.426	0.595	0.596	0.859
GTe	0.913	0.779	0.399	0.936	0.456	0.530	0.589	0.586	0.883
SP	0.919	0.743	0.415	0.948	0.497	0.409	0.413	0.447	0.450	0.862
CA	0.859	0.603	0.506	0.861	0.630	0.539	0.555	0.562	0.523	0.644	0.777
EP	0.869	0.627	0.513	0.891	0.441	0.587	0.620	0.629	0.611	0.461	0.613	0.792
SMS	0.877	0.641	0.513	0.884	0.643	0.632	0.674	0.672	0.632	0.602	0.711	0.716	0.801

MR: management resources, RR: relational resources, FR: financial resources, GTe: green technology sensing and response, EP: environmental policy, SP: strategic proactivity, SMS: green marketing strategy, CA: competitive advantage, FP: Firm Performance. The bold numbers indicate the average variance extraction (AVE).

Table 2. Assessment of measurement.

Research construct	Indicators	Indicators descriptions	Standardized factor loading	CR	AVE
Management resources	MR1	Managers’ commitment to support green initiatives	.652	0.895	0.685
	MR2	Managers’ understanding about stakeholders’ concern about environmental issues	.865
	MR3	Managers’ awareness about environmental regulations	.870
	MR4	Managers’ effort in creating common understanding among employees about green issues	.899
Relational resources	RR1	Relation with suppliers for eco-friendly inputs	.848	0.929	0.765
	RR2	Collaboration with distributors for reverse logistic	.923
	RR3	Collaboration with distributors for market intelligence	.928
	RR4	Plan to resolve green marketing related problems with suppliers	.793
Financial resources	F1	Reduction in environmental impact through investing in production processes	.832	0.893	0.738
	F2	Money allocation for green technology	.950
	F3	Promoting employees’ ability in eco-friendly practices	.786
Green technology	GT1	Actively seeking intelligence on technological changes	.835	0.913	0.779
	GT2	Responding quickly to green technological changes	.951
	GT3	Appreciation of the ideas suggested by stakeholders on green technology	.858
Green Policy	GP1	Facilitated cross-functional cooperation for green operations	.704	0.869	0.627
	GP2	A responsible person for coordinating green practices	.810
	GP3	Green procedures and system for governing eco -friendly practices	.896
	GP4	We formally communicate our environmental policy & strategy to all our employees	.743
Strategic proactivity	SP1	Changes in routines and operations for better green performance	.903	0.919	0.743
	SP2	Earlier assessment of green impact of operations and proactive measures to minimize the effects	.668
	SP3	Earlier efforts to understand the green concern of stakeholder and incorporation of the same in operations	.946
	SP4	Periodic audit to identify if there is environmental risk in existing production process	.902
Sustainable marketing strategy (SMS)	pp*	Green product	.785	0.877	0.641
	dp*	Green distribution	.845
	po*	Green promotion	.842
	pr*	Green pricing	.768
Competitive advantage (CA)	CA1	Improved corporate image	.812	0.859	0.603
	CA2	Decreased consumption of input	.731
	CA3	Attracted green customers	.774
	CA4	improved the loyalty of our existing	.787
		Customers
Firm performance (FP)	FP1	Satisfactory profit	.899	0.961	0.862
	FP2	Sales growth	.952
	FP3	Customers satisfaction	.931
	FP5	Market share growth	.930

Model Fit indices: CMIN = 1098.8, DF = 485, CMIN/DF = 2.26, NFI = .903, CFI = .97, IFI = .944, TLI = .934, RMSEA = .059, pp*, pr*, dp* and po* represent green product, green pricing, green distribution, and green promotion.

Figure 2. Final research model.

Indices of model fit: CMIN/DF = 2.8, GFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07.

Table 3. Results for structural model.

Main effects	Proposed relationship	Standardized estimate	t-value	p-value
H1	Management resources Sustainable Marketing Strategy	.14	2.94	.05
H2	Relational Resources Marketing Strategy	.22	4.23	.01
H3	Financial Resources Green Marketing Strategy	.20	4.03	.01
H4	Green Technology Green Marketing Strategy	.13	2.69	.05
H5	Green policy Green Marketing Strategy	.25	5.06	.01
H6	Sustainable Marketing Strategy Competitive advantage	.64	16.4	.01
H7	Competitive advantage Firm Performance	.33	6.02	.01
H8	Sustainable Marketing Strategy Firm Performance	.38	7.11	.01
H9	Strategic Proactivity Competitive advantage	.20	5.03	.01
	Sustainable Marketing Strategy X Strategic Proactivity Competitive advantage	.11	2.87	.01
H10	Strategic Proactivity Firm Performance	−.05	−1.27	.20
	Sustainable Marketing Strategy X Strategic Proactivity Firm Performance	.05	1.12	.23

Table 4. Results of moderated mediation analysis.

Indirect Link	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Confidence Interval	T-value
Sustainable marketing strategy Competitive advantageFirm Performance	0.41	.26(.062)	.157/.367	4.726

Table 5. Results of moderation analysis.

Moderated indirect associations	Estimate	SE	Confidence Interval at low/high level	t- value
Strategic proactivity at low level	0.223	0.052	.129/.330	4.27
Strategic proactivity at high level	0.289	0.059	.180/.411	4.84
moderated mediation index	0.042	0.018	.010/.079	2.40