Organisational Learning Culture and Sustainable Innovation Performance in Senior High Schools: the Mediating Roles of Knowledge Sharing Capability and Absorptive Capacity

Abstract

Introduction

Senior high schools play an important role in shaping students’ academic competence, social awareness, environmental responsibility, and readiness to respond to future challenges (Baker, 2021). Teachers play a key role in generating, sharing, and applying knowledge. Their ability to exchange experience and adopt new insights is essential for sustainability-oriented educational innovation. (Sayehvand et al., 2025). From the perspective of knowledge management, innovation in schools depends on how effectively teachers and school communities mobilize knowledge (Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2023). Organisational learning culture supports continuous learning, while knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity help teachers exchange internal knowledge and apply external knowledge in practice (Rad et al., 2021 ). Consistent with the Knowledge-Based View, knowledge is a strategic resource for sustaining organisational performance and innovation.

Sustainable innovation is therefore increasingly essential for balancing economic, social, environmental, and operational goals. (Ureta et al., 2025). Sustainable innovation performance is increasingly important as educational institutions are expected to promote academic excellence, social responsibility, environmental awareness, and long -term educational value. Drawing on the Knowledge-Based View, this study examines the relationship between organisational learning culture and teacher -perceived school sustainable innovation performance, both directly and indirectly through knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity. Data were obtained from 240 valid responses collected through a cross - sectional survey of senior high school teachers in the Jabodetabek region of Indonesia and analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling with SmartPLS. The results show that organisational lea rning culture is positively associated with knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.620, p < 0.001), absorptive capacity (β = 0.610, p < 0.001), and sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.265, p < 0.001). Knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.358, p < 0.001) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) are also positively associated with sustainable innovation performance.

Significant indirect associations are found through knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.222, p < 0.001) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.204, p < 0.001). The model explains 64.1% of the variance in sustainable innovation performance. These findings indicate that learning -oriented school cultures are associated with stronger sustainable innovation performance through knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity. Given the cross-sectional, self-reported, and purposive sampling design, the findings should not be interpreted as causal or generalisable to all school contexts. The bar for innovative results is raised by this expectation. Making something new is simply one aspect of sustainable innovation performance; another is making sure that novelty is in line with ethical behavior and long-term effects (F. S.

Lee et al., 2025 ). Therefore, organizations need more than just creativity; they also require the organizational ability to learn continually and transform that learning into innovations that can be put into practice (Sumarmi, 2025). From a knowledge management perspective, sustainable innovation depends on acquiring, integrating, and systematically applying knowledge from multiple sources and experiences (Georgakellos et al., 2024 ). Sustainability initiatives often fail when knowledge remains fragmented, siloed, or disconnected from implementation, highlighting the importance of mobilising knowledge into lasting innovation outcomes (Alsammak, 2025). In the educational sector, sustainable innovation has become increasingly relevant because schools are expected not only to deliver academic outcomes but also to cultivate responsible, adaptive, and sustainability -oriented learning environments (Escala et al., 2025 ). Senior high schools play an important role in shaping students’ awareness of sustainability values through curriculum implementation, pedagogical innovation, school programmes, and communitybased activities (Padilla et al., 2025). In this context, teachers are central actors because they translate institutional goals into classroom practices, exchange pedagogical knowledge with colleagues, and adapt external educational and sustainability-related insights into practical learning innovations (Khalid Malik et al., 2023 ).

Understanding sustainable innovation in schools requires examining how teachers learn, share, and absorb knowledge. This study focuses on Jabodetabek, a diverse metropolitan educational context shaped by digital transformation and growing sustainability demands. (Rosliani et al., 2025). Schools in this area operate within a complex environment shaped by urban development, social diversity, technological change, and growing demands for more future-oriented education (Le & Vu, 2025). Jabodetabek provides a relevant context for examining sustainable innovation, while the Knowledge -Based View explains how knowledge integration and application support organisational performance (Danko & Crhová, 2025). From this perspective, sustainable innovation depends on knowledge capabilities that transform organisational learning into consistent and responsible innovation practices (Wongmahesak et al., 2025). An essential place to start in this approach is with the organization's learning culture.

Experimentation, introspection, receptivity to new concepts, and ongoing development are all encouraged by a robust learning culture (Cheong et al., 2024 ). It lessens resistance to change and validates learning as a necessary component of everyday tasks. However, robust, long -lasting innovation performance is not guaranteed by learning culture alone (Kucharska & Bedford, 2020). Although prior empirical studies have linked organisational learning culture with innovation -related outcomes, the existing literature still leaves several important gaps. Studies such (Cai et al., 2026; Malik et al., 2025; R. A. Wibowo et al., 2026) have generally positioned organisational learning culture as a direct antecedent of innovation performance, but they provide limited explanation of the knowledge-based mechanisms through which a learning - oriented school environment is translated into sustainable innovation performance.

Other studies have examined knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity in relation to innovation, but these capabilities have often been treated separately rather than being tested together in an integrated mediati on m odel. For example, (Ben Slimane, 2021; Mao et al., 2021 ; H. Wu et al., 2025 ) highlight the relevance of knowledge sharing or absorptive capacity for innovation, yet they do not specifically examine how both capabilities simultaneously mediate the relationship between organisational learning culture and sustainable innovation performance. This study addresses these gaps by examining knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity as parallel mediators between organisational learning culture and sustainable innovation performance. The former reflects internal teacher knowledge exchange, while the latter captures the recognition and application of external educational knowledge. Its novelty lies in integrating both capabilities within one model using teacher perceptions from senior high schools in Jabodetabek. The metropolitan context is relevant because schools vary in institutional capacity and are increasingly exposed to digital learning and sustainability -related educational demands.

(Rosliani et al., 2025 ). Knowledge mobilization is especially important because of these conditions, which force educators to change their pedagogical strategies, adjust to changing educational regulations, and integrate outside knowledge into school-based innovation (Farley-Ripple & MacGregor, 2024). As a result, this study views Jabodetabek as an educational setting where the relationship between learning culture, knowledge - based capabilities, and sustainable innovation performance can be investigated under dynamic urban school conditions rather than just as a new research location. Organizational learning culture is supposed to serve as an enabling intangible condition that promotes knowledge mobilization and innovation, according to the Knowledge - Based View (Alshammari & Alshammari, 2026 ). Teachers' ability to share and absorb knowledge may be strengthened by a learning-oriented school culture that promotes introspection, teamwork, openness to new ideas, and continuous improvement (Serpa et al., 2020 ). By assisting schools in converting internal and external knowledge into teaching strategies, curricula, and institutional procedures that are focused on sustainability, these two competencies may then enhance sustainable innovation performance (Rolls, 2026 ). Therefore, this study looks at a parallel mediation model that links organizational learning culture to sustainable innovation performance both directly and indirectly through absorptive and knowledge-sharing capacities.

Based on the proposed structural model, this study formulates seven hypotheses. H1: Organisational learning culture has a positive effect on knowledge sharing capability. H2: Organisational learning culture has a positive effect on absorptive capacity. H3: Organisational learning culture has a positive effect on sustainable innovation performance. H4: Knowledge sharing capability has a positive effect on sustainable innovation performance. H5: Knowledge sharing capability mediates the relationship between organisational learning culture and sustainable innovation performance. H6: Absorptive capacity has a positive effect on sustainable innovation performance.

H7: Absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between organisational learning culture and sustainable innovation performance. This study shows how organisational learning culture is associated with sustainable innovation performance through two parallel knowledge-based mechanisms: internal knowledge sharing and external knowledge absorption.

Methods

Research Type This study used a quantitative cross -sectional survey to examine relationships among organisational learning culture, knowledge sharing capability, absorptive capacity, and sustainable innovation performance through statistical analysis of latent variables (Bougie & Sekaran, 2020 ; Creswell & Creswell, 2022). This study used a cross-sectional design with individual teachers as the unit of analysis. All constructs were interpreted as teacher -perceived school conditions rather than aggregated school -level characteristics. Because no multilevel or within -school analysis was conducted, the findings should not be interpreted as school-level effects. Population and Sample/Informants The target population comprised active senior high school teachers in Jabodetabek. Purposive sampling required respondents to have at least one year of teaching experience and familiarity with school learning, knowledge sharing, and innovation practices (Memon et al., 2025 ). Incomplete, ineligible, or unusable responses were excluded.

The survey was conducted from February to March 2026, yielding 240 valid responses from 300 submissions. Because purposive sampling was used and school identifiers were not collected, teachers were treated as the unit of analysis and findings as teacher-perceived rather than school-level effects. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 with F tests for linear multiple regression (fixed model, R² deviation from zero) and three predictors, reflecting the maximum number of paths directed toward sustainable Table 1. Item Wording Construct Code Adapted Item Wording Organisational Learning Culture OLC1 Teachers in my school actively seek relevant information to improve teaching and school practices. OLC2 Teachers in my school interpret new information to support improvement in learning and school programmes. OLC3 Teachers in my school are encouraged to discuss problems, ideas, and improvement opportunities. OLC4 Communication among teachers and school leaders supports shared learning and improvement.

OLC5 My school provides formal learning opportunities such as training, workshops, or professional development activities. OLC6 Teachers in my school learn informally through daily practice, peer feedback, and reflection. Knowledge Sharing Capability KSC1 Teachers in my school use a shared language when discussing teaching practices and school improvement. KSC2 Teachers in my school share experiences or stories that help colleagues understand effective practices. KSC3 Teachers in my school communicate directly with colleagues to exchange teaching ideas and school-related knowledge. KSC4 Teachers in my school use digital tools or online channels to share learning resources and information. KSC5 Teachers in my school are willing to contribute knowledge and experience to support their colleagues.

KSC6 Useful knowledge is transferred across teachers, subject groups, or school teams. Absorptive Capacity AC1 Teachers in my school identify external knowledge that is relevant to improving learning and school practices. AC2 Teachers in my school obtain new ideas from training, policy updates, professional networks, universities, or community partners. AC3 Teachers in my school interpret external educational information according to school needs. AC4 Teachers in my school discuss external knowledge internally before applying it in school activities. AC5 Teachers in my school apply external knowledge to improve teaching, learning activities, or school programmes. AC6 Teachers in my school use external knowledge to develop new learning methods, services, or improvement initiatives.

Sustainable Innovation Performance SIP1 My school develops learning activities that promote environmental awareness and sustainability values. SIP2 My school improves school routines to reduce waste, save resources, or use energy more efficiently. SIP3 My school involves teachers and students in sustainability -related initiatives or school improvement activities. SIP4 My school supports well -being, safety, inclusiveness, and social responsibility through its innovation activities. SIP5 My school develops innovations that improve operational efficiency and the effective use of school resources. SIP6 My school develops innovations that create long -term educational value for students, teachers, and the school community. Source : Data Processed, 2026 innovation performance (Nicholson et al., 2021 ).

With α = 0.05, power = 0.80, and f² = 0.05, G*Power indicated a minimum sample of 222. The final sample of 240 exceeded this requirement and was also adequate for estimating the reflective PLS-SEM model and testing the proposed mediation effects. Research Location The study was conducted in Jabodetabek , Indonesia, covering Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi. Its diverse educational context was suitable for examining the study variables, although purposive sampling limits generalisation beyond the region. Instrumentation or Tools Data were collected using a 24 -item reflective questionnaire, with six indicators per construct measured on a five-point Likert scale. The items were adapted from prior studies and contextualised for the senior high school setting. Organisational Learning Culture was measured using indicators adapted from the dimensions of information acquisition and interpretation, supportive relationships and communication, and formal and informal learning (Laubengaier et al., 2025 ; Viterouli et al., 2024 ; Vos et al., 2025).

Knowledge Sharing Capability was measured using indicators reflecting cognitive, network ties, and cultural dimensions, including shared language, communication patterns, willingness to share knowledge, and knowledge transfer among teachers (Eletter et al., 2022 ; Nguyen & DO, 2021; D. Wu et al., 2024). Absorptive Capacity was measured using indicators related to acquisition, assimilation, and exploitation of external educational knowledge (Angulo-Ruiz et al., 2026 ; Crespi et al., 2022 ; Lenart-Gansiniec et al., 2022). Sustainable Innovation Performance was measured using school -adapted indicators reflecting environmental, social, and economic sustainability in educational practice (Baba et al., 2024 ; Da Silva & De AzevedoAlmeida, 2019 ; Lizana et al., 2021) (Table 1). Items were adapted to the school context, reviewed by experts and teachers, and refined through translation and back-translation. All constructs were specified as reflective. Data Collection Procedures Data were collected through an anonymous cross - sectional online survey of eligible senior high school teachers in Jabodetabek.

Participants provided informed consent, and incomplete or ineligible responses were excluded. Data Analysis PLS-SEM with SmartPLS was used because the study involved multiple latent constructs, mediation effects, and prediction-oriented analysis. The analysis included descriptive statistics, followed by measurement model and structural model evaluation (Chua, 2023; Hair et al., 2022; Kline, 2023; Radomir et al., 2023 ). The measurement model was assessed using outer loadings (> 0.70), Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (> 0.70), and AVE (> 0.50). Discriminant validity was evaluated using HTMT and the Fornell -Larcker criterion. (Chua, 2023; Hair et al., 2022; Kline, 2023; Radomir et al., 2023).The structural model was evaluated using R², f², Q², SRMR, NFI, and bootstrapping to test direct and mediated effects (Chua, 2023; Hair et al., 2022; Kline, 2023; Radomir et al., 2023). Hypotheses were tested using 5,000 bootstrap subsamples at the 5% level, with significance set at t > 1.96 and p < 0.05.

Direct, indirect, and potential common method effects were assessed (Yao & Xu, 2024 ). By guaranteeing respondents' anonymity and confidentiality, using precise questionnaire wording, and separating the assessment of predictor and result components, procedural remedies were implemented (Kaltsonoudi et al., 2022 ). Variance inflation factor values were used to statistically evaluate common method bias; values below the suggested threshold indicated that multicollinearity and common method bias were not serious issues. Ethical Approval The study followed ethical principles for low -risk research. Formal approval was not required because participation was anonymous, voluntary, and involved no sensitive data or experimental procedures. Informed consent was obtained, and all data were securely stored and reported in aggregate.

Result and Discussion

Descriptive Analysis Table 2 summarises the respondent profile and survey screening. Of 300 responses collected between February and March 2026, 240 were retained, yielding an 80.0% usable response rate. Respondents were predominantly male (58.3%), aged 26–35 years (40.8%), bachelor’s degree holders (62.9%), from public schools (55.0%), senior high schools (65.0%), and A-accredited institutions (70.0%). They were distributed across Jakarta (24.2%), Bekasi (23.3%), Tangerang (21.3%), Bogor (17.9%), and Depok (13.3%). Because purposive sampling was used, the sample should not be considered statistically representative of all senior high school teachers in Jabodetabek. Measurement Analysis The measurement model was assessed before testing the structural relationships to ensure that each construct was measured accurately and reliably (Chua, 2023 ). Indicator reliability required outer loadings > 0.70, while Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability > 0.70 indicated adequate internal consistency.

The average variance extracted (AVE) was Table 2. Demographic of Respondent Variable Category n % Survey Screening Initial responses received 300 100.0 Excluded after screening 60 20.0 Valid responses used in analysis 240 80.0 Gender Male 140 58.3 Female 100 41.7 Age Group ≤25 years 54 22.5 26–35 years 98 40.8 36–45 years 61 25.4 46 years and above 27 11.3 Education Diploma 31 12.9 Bachelor 151 62.9 Master 45 18.8 Doctorate 13 5.4 School Ownership Public school 132 55.0 Private school 108 45.0 School Type Senior High School 156 65.0 Vocational High School 60 25.0 Islamic Senior High School / equivalent 24 10.0 School Accreditati on A 168 70.0 B 60 25.0 C or other 12 5.0 School Location Jakarta 58 24.2 Bogor 43 17.9 Depok 32 13.3 Tangerang 51 21.3 Bekasi 56 23.3 Source : Data Processed, 2026 used to evaluate convergent validity; values greater than 0.50 indicated that the concept adequately explained the variation in its indicators (Radomir et al., 2023). In order to characterize the respondents' overall opinions on each construct, the mean values were also presented. The Fornell-Larcker criteria and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) were used to assess discriminant validity. When each construct's square root of AVE was greater than its correlations with other constructs, the Fornell-Larcker criteria was satisfied, and HTMT values below the suggested threshold showed that the Figure 1. Measurenment Model Source : Data Processed, 2026 Table 3. Measurenment Analysis Construct Item Mean Outer Loading VIF Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability (rho_a) Composite Reliability (rho_c) AVE Absorptive Capacity AC1 4.254 0.847 2.525 0.920 0.922 0.938 0.715 AC2 4.296 0.833 2.482 AC3 4.292 0.826 2.445 AC4 4.217 0.841 2.524 AC5 4.304 0.852 2.629 AC6 4.254 0.875 3.005 Knowledge Sharing Capability KSC1 4.263 0.834 2.309 0.909 0.913 0.930 0.688 KSC2 4.246 0.832 2.324 KSC3 4.250 0.832 2.375 KSC4 4.242 0.833 2.350 KSC5 4.279 0.783 1.937 KSC6 4.258 0.863 2.578 Organisational Learning Culture OLC1 4.263 0.830 2.356 0.919 0.921 0.936 0.711 OLC2 4.292 0.818 2.190 OLC3 4.242 0.856 2.587 OLC4 4.233 0.801 2.200 OLC5 4.279 0.886 3.196 OLC6 4.283 0.864 2.789 Sustainable Innovation Performance SIP1 4.254 0.850 2.501 0.913 0.914 0.933 0.698 SIP2 4.263 0.826 2.291 SIP3 4.263 0.835 2.412 SIP4 4.213 0.849 2.568 SIP5 4.258 0.817 2.217 SIP6 4.250 0.834 2.285 Source : Data Processed, 2026 constructs were empirically different from one another (Hair et al., 2022 ).

In order to identify any collinearity between indicators and constructs, variance inflation factor (VIF) values were also analyzed. Multicollinearity was not a significant worry in the model, according to VIF values below the suggested level (Kline, 2023). The measurement model results are illustrated in Figure 1.. Table 3 shows that the measurement model met the recommended reliability and validity criteria. Mean values ranged from 4.213 to 4.304, while outer loadings ranged from 0.783 to 0.886. Cronbach’s alpha (0.909 –0.920), rho_a (0.913–0.922), rho_c (0.930 –0.938), and AVE (0.688 – 0.715) confirmed strong reliability and convergent validity. VIF values (1.937–3.196) indicated no serious multicollinearity.

Discriminant validity was confirmed, with HTMT values of 0.473–0.751 below 0.85, square roots of AVE exceeding inter-construct correlations, and all indicators loading highest on their intended constructs (Table 4). Thus, the constructs were empirically distinct and suitable for structural analysis. Structural Analysis After confirming the adequacy of the measurement model, the structural model was evaluated to test the hypotheses and assess explanatory and predictive performance. R² was used to measure explained variance in the endogenous constructs, while f² assessed t he contribution of each predictor (Chua, 2023); (Kline, 2023). Predictive relevance was evaluated using Q², and overall model fit was assessed using relevant PLS-SEM fit diagnostics, including the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and normed fit index (NFI) (Radomir et al., 2023). Bootstrapping path coefficients, t -values, and p-values were used to test direct effects, while specific indirect effects assessed mediation through knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity (Hair et al., 2022 ); (Kline, 2023 ). The structural model with path coefficients and t -values is presented in Figure 2.

Table 5 shows that the model explains 64.1% of sustainable innovation performance, 37.2% of absorptive capacity, and 38.5% of knowledge sharing capability, indicating adequate explanatory power. The adjusted R-square values for absorptive capacity (0.370), knowledge sharing capability (0.382), and sustainable innovation performance (0.636) are Table 4. Discriminant Validity Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Sharing Capability Organisational Learning Culture Sustainable Innovation Performance Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.473 Organisational Learning Culture 0.660 0.672 Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.708 0.731 0.751 Fornel Larcker Criterion Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Sharing Capability Organisational Learning Culture Sustainable Innovation Performance Absorptive Capacity 0.846 Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.436 0.830 Organisational Learning Culture 0.610 0.620 0.843 Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.652 0.668 0.691 0.835 Cross Loading Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Sharing Capability Organisational Learning Culture Sustainable Innovation Performance AC1 0.847 0.423 0.522 0.569 AC2 0.833 0.323 0.484 0.473 AC3 0.826 0.307 0.499 0.543 AC4 0.841 0.345 0.518 0.543 AC5 0.852 0.368 0.503 0.567 AC6 0.875 0.434 0.564 0.602 KSC1 0.359 0.834 0.544 0.551 KSC2 0.362 0.832 0.524 0.531 KSC3 0.321 0.832 0.464 0.523 KSC4 0.361 0.833 0.476 0.563 KSC5 0.359 0.783 0.459 0.532 KSC6 0.402 0.863 0.602 0.618 OLC1 0.479 0.498 0.830 0.594 OLC2 0.565 0.534 0.818 0.607 OLC3 0.501 0.584 0.856 0.632 OLC4 0.435 0.458 0.801 0.494 OLC5 0.538 0.547 0.886 0.582 OLC6 0.555 0.504 0.864 0.574 SIP1 0.607 0.527 0.594 0.850 SIP2 0.518 0.527 0.562 0.826 SIP3 0.549 0.550 0.567 0.835 SIP4 0.527 0.589 0.568 0.849 SIP5 0.494 0.550 0.551 0.817 SIP6 0.568 0.602 0.618 0.834 Source : Data Processed, 2026 close to their respective R -square values. The model showed stable explanatory power. Organisational learning culture had large effects on knowledge sharing capability (f² = 0.625) and absorptive capacity (f² = 0.593), while both had moderate effects on sustainable innovation performance. SRMR (0.046–0.048), NFI (0.913 –0.914), and positive Q²predict values confirmed acceptable fit and predictive relevance. Bootstrapping supported all seven hypotheses.

Organisational learning culture positively affected knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.620), absorptive capacity (β = 0.610), and sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.265), while knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.358) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.334) also positively affected sustainable innovation performance (all p < 0.001). Both mediation paths were significant through knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.222) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.204) (Table 6). Knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.222) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.204) both showed significant partial mediation. Their VAF values were 32.1% and 29.5%, with a combined 61.7%. The knowledge sharing pathway was slightly stronger, while future studies should consider multilevel analysis. Because the study used cross -sectional self -reported data, the findings should be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects. H1 and H2 were supported, with organisational learning culture showing strong relationships with knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.620, p < 0.001) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.610, p < 0.001).

The slightly stronger association with knowledge sharing capability suggests that learning culture may be reflected more directly in everyday teacher interaction, collaboration, mentoring, and reflective practices (Cristache et al., 2025 ; Herlina et al., 2024; S. Lee & Han, 2024). The strong OLC –KSC relationship also supports prior evidence that teacher collaboration, peer learning, and professional communities strengthen practical knowledge exchange and school improvement (Tran & O’Connor, 2024 ). When schools provide a learning -oriented environment, such knowledge is more likely to be exchanged and discussed collectively (Zeinabadi, 2022 ; Zhang, 2022 ; Zhang et al., 2025). The strong association between organisational learning culture and knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.620) supports the importance of internal knowledge mobilisation for school innovation, particularly through teacher collaboration. A similarly strong r elationship with absorptive capacity (β = 0.610) indicates that learning-oriented schools are also better positioned to recognise and apply external knowledge (Makhloufi et al., 2021; Vičič Krabonja et al., 2024; Witthöft et al., 2025). In Jabodetabek schools, external knowledge may come from curriculum reforms, digital platforms, training, partnerships, and policy initiatives.

Because such knowledge must be recognised, interpreted, and adapted, this may explain why the OLC–AC coefficient is slightly lower than OLC–KSC. H3 was also supported, as organisational learning culture was positively associated with sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.265, p < 0.001). Its smaller coefficient suggests that learning culture is more strongly related to knowledge-capability development than directly to innovation performance, consistent with the Knowledge -Based View that knowledge creates value when it is shared, absorbed, and applied (Alqatan et al., 2025; Cristache et al., 2025). Therefore, the lower direct coefficient does not weaken the role of learning culture; rather, it suggests that learning culture may be more closely associated with sustainable innovation performance when it is translated into operational knowledge practices. Knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.358, p < 0.001) and Figure 2. Structural Model Source : Data Processed, 2026 absorptive capacity (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) were both positively associated with sustainable innovation performance, supporting H4 and H6. The slightly stronger effect of knowledge sharing capability suggests that internal teacher knowledge exchange may contribute more directly to sustainable innovation, which often depends on collective Table 5.

Structural Analysis R Square R-square R-square adjusted Absorptive Capacity 0.372 0.370 Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.385 0.382 Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.641 0.636 F Square Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Sharing Capability Organisational Learning Culture Sustainable Innovation Performance Absorptive Capacity 0.193 Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.218 Organisational Learning Culture 0.593 0.625 0.093 Sustainable Innovation Performance Model Fit Saturated model Estimated model SRMR 0.046 0.048 d_ULS 0.634 0.682 d_G 0.276 0.274 Chi-square 379.094 373.838 NFI 0.913 0.914 Q Square Q²predict RMSE MAE Absorptive Capacity 0.365 0.805 0.633 Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.379 0.796 0.639 Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.472 0.735 0.584 Source : Data Processed, 2026 Table 6. Hypothesis Hypothesis Relationship Original Sample Sample Mean STDEV T Statistics 95% CI P Values VAF Decision H1 Organisational Learning Culture -> Knowledge Sharing Capability 0.620 0.619 0.048 12.973 [0.515, 0.707] p < 0.001 - Supported H2 Organisational Learning Culture -> Absorptive Capacity 0.610 0.609 0.058 10.454 [0.482, 0.712] p < 0.001 - Supported H3 Organisational Learning Culture -> Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.265 0.263 0.063 4.228 [0.147, 0.395] p < 0.001 - Supported H4 Knowledge Sharing Capability -> Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.358 0.357 0.053 6.723 [0.251, 0.461] p < 0.001 - Supported H5 Organisational Learning Culture -> Knowledge Sharing Capability -> Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.222 0.221 0.037 5.954 [0.154, 0.299] p < 0.001 32.1% Supported H6 Absorptive Capacity -> Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.334 0.336 0.059 5.651 [0.212, 0.445] p < 0.001 - Supported H7 Organisational Learning Culture -> Absorptive Capacity -> Sustainable Innovation Performance 0.204 0.205 0.044 4.632 [0.122, 0.291] p < 0.001 29.5% Supported Source : Data Processed, 2026 implementation (Lockyer et al., 2024 ). Teaching innovation, sustainability-based learning activities, curriculum adaptation, digital learning practices, and school improvement programmes are more likely to be sustained when teachers exchange ideas and convert individual experience into collective school -level practices (DavisSingaravelu, 2022 ). This interpretation is consistent with studies that highlight knowledge sharing as a mechanism for scaling ideas, reducing repeated trial -and-error, and improving consistency in organisational practice (Koster, 2022; Wan et al., 2024). Absorptive capacity was also strongly associated with sustainable innovation performance, supporting the importance of adapting to external knowledge, technologies, policies, and institutional change (Pietrzak, 2025; Qadeer & Hussain, 2025 ). Absorptive capacity may show a slightly weaker effect because external knowledge must first be adapted to school priorities and routines. Both knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.222, p < 0.001) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.204, p < 0.001) significantly mediated the relationship, supporting H5 and H7, with knowledge sharing showing the slightly stronger pathway (Koster, 2022; Rahim et al., 2023).

The absorptive capacity pathway also remains important, indicating that learning -oriented schools are better able to recognise and apply external knowledge to support innovation. (Makhloufi et al., 2021 ); (Ismail et al., 2026 ); (Witthöft et al., 2025 ). The significant direct effect confirms partial mediation. Effect sizes show that organisational learning culture contributes more strongly to knowledge sharing capability (f² = 0.625) and absorptive capacity (f² = 0.593) than directly to sustainable innovation performance (f² = 0.093). The model explains 64.1% of sustainable innovation performance, suggesting that learning culture operates mainly through knowledge -based capabilities (Liu & Yang, 2024); (M. A. Wibowo, 2022); (Krawczyk & Urban, 2026).

School leadership may partly explain the observed relationships, as stronger leadership could simultaneously enhance learning culture, knowledge capabilities, and sustainable innovation performance (Ogunbayo & Yassim, 2025); (Shatat, 2026). School resources may also influence the findings, as better funding, digital facilities, training, and partnerships can strengthen knowledge capabilities and sustainable innovation (Santosa et al., 2025); (Shehzad et al., 2022). Third, digital infrastructure may be especially relevant in Jabodetabek, where access to digital platforms, online teacher networks, and technology -supported learning may vary across schools (Yaqin et al., 2023 ); (Basatha et al., 2025). Fourth, common-method effects may have inflated the observed associations because all variables were measured using teacher self-reports at one point in time. Teachers who evaluate their schools positively in one area may also evaluate other areas positively (Tuytens & Devos, 2017). The findings should be interpreted as perceived associations rather than causal effects. Future studies should examine additional contextual factors and use longitudinal, multi - source, or mixed-method designs to test the robustness and temporal direction of these relationships.

Theoretical Implications This study extends the Knowledge -Based View to senior high schools by showing that organisational learning culture is associated with knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity. These capabilities represent the internal exchange of teacher knowle dge and the recognition and application of external educational knowledge. The findings suggest that learning culture is linked to sustainable innovation mainly through the development and use of these knowledge-based capabilities. Practical Implications Schools should translate a learning -oriented culture into concrete practices that strengthen knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity. Peer mentoring, professional learning communities, collaborative planning, training, digital learning, university partnerships, and community projects may support these capabilities and sustainable innovation. However, these implications should be interpreted as evidence -based recommendations rather than causal prescriptions. Limitations And Future Research This study is limited by its cross-sectional design, purposive sampling, self -reported data, and potential common method bias, which restrict causal inference and generalisability.

Future research should use longitudinal, probability -based, multi-source, or mixed-method designs across broader school contexts. Additional factors such as leadership, resources, digital infrastructure, workload, psychological safety, innovation climate, accreditation, school type, and policy support should also be examined to p rovide a more comprehensive explanation of sustainable innovation performance.

Conclusion

This study found that organisational learning culture was positively associated with knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.620, p < 0.001), absorptive capacity (β = 0.610, p < 0.001), and sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.265, p < 0.001). The model explained 37.2% of absorptive capacit y, 38.5% of knowledge sharing capability, and 64.1% of sustainable innovation performance.Knowledge sharing capability (β = 0.358, p < 0.001) and absorptive capacity (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) were also positively associated with sustainable innovation performance and partially mediated the relationship between organisational learning culture and sustainable innovation performance, with indirect effects of β = 0.222 and β = 0.204, respectively. These findings extend the Knowledge-Based View by showing that learning -oriented school cultures are associated with sustainable innovation through internal knowledge sharing and external knowledge absorption. Schools may therefore strengthen collaboration, professional learning, training, digital learning, and external partnerships.However, the cross-sectional, self-reported, and purposive sampling design limits causal inference and generalisability. Future studies should use longitudinal, multi -source, br oader, and multilevel designs. Overall, organisational learning culture is associated with teacher-perceived sustainable innovation performance both directly and through knowledge sharing capability and absorptive capacity.

Author Contributions

Sunarti contributed to the study conceptualization, methodology, research design, data collection, data curation, provision of research materials, and formal analysis. Cecep Yoto Haryoto contributed to the interpretation and validation of findings, manuscr ipt drafting, critical review, revision, and publication-related activities. Both authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the senior high school teachers in Jabodetabek who participated in this study, as well as the schools, professional networks, academic peers, and colleagues who supported respondent access, data collection, administrative processes, and manuscript development.

References

Shohaieb, D. (2025). Strategic Pathways to Corporate Sustainability: The Roles of Transformational Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125547

Alsammak, M. (2025). Adopting Green Knowledge Management Processes via Core Business Processes to Promote Sustainable Innovation. Quality - Access to Success , 26(209), 138 –146. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/26.209.14

Alshammari, K. H., & Alshammari, A. F. (2026). From Digitalization to Knowledge Innovation: Integrated Model of AI Knowledge Agility and Organizational Learning Culture. Systems, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14010067

Angulo-Ruiz, F., Rialp, J., Muralidharan, E., & Tamru Hailemariam, S. (2026). Unpacking the mechanisms linking internationalization and innovation: the sequential roles of potential and realized absorptive capacities. Multinational Business Review , 1 –42. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR - 07-2025-0240

Baba, A., Shahrour, I., Baba, M., & Sadek, M. (2024). Sustainability Assessment of Public Schools in the Palestinian Territory. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems , 906 LNNS , 277 –291. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -3- 031-53824-7_25

Baker, W. (2021). The Role of the Teacher in Facilitating the Aha! Moment. In Creativity of an Aha! Moment and Mathematics Education (pp. 139– 163). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446434_006 Basatha, R., Prayoga, R. A. S., Akbar, M. S., Prayitno, E. D., Nikmah, M., Nusyura,

F., Wirapraja, A., Ma’ady, M. N. P., & Fitrani, L. D. (2025). Systematic Literature Review on the Implementation of Game -Based Learning Management Systems through ClassDojo in Indonesian Education: A Focus on Parental Involvement and Teacher Readiness to Increase Student Learning Motivation. E3S Web of Conferences , 645. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202564506006

Ben Slimane, S. (2021). Absorption - technological absorptive capacity and innovation: The primacy of knowledge. In Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2: Special Themes (pp. 43– 49). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119832522.ch3

Bougie, R., & Sekaran, U. (2020). Research Methods for Business (8th Edition). Wiley.

Cai, H., Wang, J., & Jin, X. (2026). The relationship between learning organization system on innovation performance: testing moderated mediation role of organizational cultural identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1828291 Cheong, C. W. H., She, L., Ma, L., Karim, S., Chan, L.-F., Chong, P. L., Choong, P. W., Gan, C. C., Gultom, N. D., Homer, S. T., Hossain, S. M., Leong, K. Y., Nga, J., Piprani, A. Z., Poon, W. C., Singh, J., Tehseen, S., & Wong, E. M. L. (2024). Building a culture of innovation: Innovation 360°. Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 43(6), 5 –23. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22255

Chua, Y. P. (2023). A step -by-step guide: PLS -SEM data analysis using SmartPLS 4. Researchtree Education.

Crespi, T. B., Da Costa, P. R., Preusler, T. S., & Cirani, C. B. S. (2022). Absorptive Capacity in a Public Research Company: From Maturity to Scalability. Brazilian Business Review , 19(2), 133 –152. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2021.19.2.2

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cristache, N., Croitoru, G., & Florea, N. V. (2025). The influence of knowledge management on innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge , 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100793

Da Silva, G. S., & De AzevedoAlmeida, L. (2019). Sustainability indicators for higher education institutions: A proposal based on the literature review. Revista de Gestao Ambiental e Sustentabilidade , 8(1), 123 –144. https://doi.org/10.5585/geas.v8i1.13767

Danko, L., & Crhová, Z. (2025). Rethinking the Role of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 16(4), 13873 –13893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02354-5

Davis-Singaravelu, S. (2022). The Potential to Build Collective Capacity for Organisational Learning in the Context of Teachers’ Use of Digital Technology for School Improvement. Education Sciences , 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010033

Eletter, S., El Refae, G. A., & Kaba, A. (2022). The impact of knowledge sharing enablers on knowledge sharing behavior: an empirical study. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems , 52(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2020-0065

Escala, N., Romeu, T., & Guitert, M. (2025). Arts integration with digital tools in primary schools: Innovative pedagogical practices in Catalonia. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 9, 100538.

Farley-Ripple, E., & MacGregor, S. (2024). A mixed methods study of education researchers’ knowledge mobilization approaches. Journal of Educational Change , 25(4), 825 –846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-024-09517-w

Georgakellos, D. A., Agoraki, K. K., & Fousteris, A. E. (2024). Pioneering Sustainability: Insights from the Integrative Role of Knowledge Management Processes and Technological Innovation. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104296

Hair, J. F. , Hult, G. T. M. , Ringle, C. M. , & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS -SEM) (3e ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herlina, M. G., Fitrianastasya, F., Ratih, S., & Amandha, M. (2024). UNLOCKING INNOVATION FROM WITHIN: THE POWER OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE AND CHANGE ADAPTABILITY IN INDONESIAN INTERNAL ORGANISATIONAL INNOVATION PROCESSES. Economics and Culture , 21(1), 10 –28. https://doi.org/10.2478/jec-2024-0002

Ibarra-Cisneros, M. A., Reyna, J. B. V, & Hernández-Perlines, F. (2023). Interaction between knowledge management, intellectual capital and innovation in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies , 28(8), 9685–9708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11563-x

Ismail, M., Bello -Pintado, A., & García -Marco, T. (2026). Managing absorptive capacity: The role of leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2026.101939

Kaltsonoudi, K., Tsigilis, N., & Karteroliotis, K. (2022). Common method bias in research designs using self -report tools: literature overview and recommended remedies. Psychology, 27(1), 210 –231. https://doi.org/10.12681/psyhps.30843

Khalid Malik, M. S., Qi, Z., Iqbal, M., Zamir, S., & Fatima Malik, B. (2023). Education for sustainable development: Secondary school teacher’s awareness and perception of integration. Sustainable Development , 31(3), 1515–1525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2463

Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . Guilford publications.

Koster, F. (2022). Knowledge Management and Innovation Performance a Mediated-Moderation Model. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management , 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1142/S021987702250002X

Krawczyk, E., & Urban, W. (2026). Towards Synergy of Continuous Improvement and Innovativeness Subsystem in the Organization. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering , 366 –378. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -3- 032-10111-2_30

Kucharska, W., & Bedford, D. A. D. (2020). Love your mistakes! —they help you adapt to change. How do knowledge, collaboration and learning cultures foster organizational intelligence? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1329 –1354. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM -02- 2020-0052

Laubengaier, D. A., Wiggers, J., & Powell, D. J. (2025). The Role of Formal and Informal Learning in Developing an Organizational Learning Culture. Research Technology Management , 68(5), 31 –45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2025.2534317

Le, P. B., & Vu, K. D. (2025). Knowledge sharing mediates relationship between collaborative culture and innovation performance: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 19(1), 272–288. Lee, F. S., Andry, J. F., Purnomo, Y., Christianto, K., Cong, D. V, & Tanuwijaya, R. E. (2025). Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Business Practices. In Green Society, Environmental Strategies and Sustainable Development (pp. 109–124). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94086-6_6

Lee, S., & Han, S. -H. (2024). Learning organization culture and knowledge sharing: the mediating role of social capital. Journal of Workplace Learning, 36(8), 770–787. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-06-2024-0120

Lenart-Gansiniec, R., Czakon, W., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2022). In search of virtuous learning circles: absorptive capacity and its antecedents in the education sector. Journal of Knowledge Management , 26(11), 42 –70. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2021-0310

Liu, H., & Yang, X. (2024). Examining the Impact of Supply Chain Management and Open Innovation on Sustainability Performance in Thailand: The Mediating Role of Organizational Learning Culture. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences , 22(1), 2779 –2799. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.1.00206 Lizana, J., Manteigas, V., Chacartegui, R., Lage, J., Becerra, J. A., Blondeau, P., Rato, R., Silva, F., Gamarra, A. R., Herrera, I., Gomes, M., Fernandez, A., Berthier, C., Gonçalves, K., Alexandre, J. L., Almeida -Silva, M., & Almeida, S. M. (2021). A met hodology to empower citizens towards a low -carbon economy. The potential of schools and sustainability indicators. Journal of Environmental Management , 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112043

Lockyer, P., Le Fevre, D., & Vickers, M. (2024). Implementation and sustainability of student peer -led physical activity programs in a school community. Journal of Professional Capital and Community , 9(2), 154 –170. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-12-2023-0083

Makhloufi, L., Laghouag, A. A., Sahli, A. A., & Belaid, F. (2021). Impact of entrepreneurial orientation on innovation capability: The mediating role of absorptive capability and organizational learning capabilities. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105399

Malik, I. A., Mehraj, D., u Nissa, V., & Wani, A. K. (2025). Unveiling the Dynamics of Sustainable Development: A Holistic Examination of Green Organizational Learning, Innovation, and Performance in Indian SMEs. Business Strategy and Development , 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70060

Mao, H., Wang, Z., & Yi, L. (2021). Does entrepreneurial orientation lead to successful sustainable innovation? The evidence from chinese environmentally friendly companies. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 13(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810294

Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Ting, H., & Cheah, J. -H. (2025). PURPOSIVE SAMPLING: A REVIEW AND GUIDELINES FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling , 9(1), 1 –23. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.9(1)01

Nguyen, K. N., & Do, T. D. (2021). FACTORS INFLUENCING KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF STUDENTS IN VIETNAM. Journal Of Organizational Behavior Research , 6(2), 134– 151. https://doi.org/10.51847/LJZB9XoP0F

Nicholson, K. J., Reyes, A. A., Sherman, M., DIvi, S. N., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2021). Power Analysis for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. Clinical Spine Surgery, 34(2), 63 –65. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001079

Ogunbayo, S. B., & Yassim, K. (2025). Impact of Leadership Styles and School Culture on Educational Institutional Management: A Study of Selected Schools. International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 32(2), 157 –178. https://doi.org/10.18848/2329 - 1656/CGP/v32i02/157-178

Padilla, J. E., Casimiro, J. M. E., & Amigable, C. V. (2025). Assessing Senior High School Students’ Awareness of Sustainable Development Goals in a Philippine STEM School. Science Education International, 36(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v36.i1.4

Pietrzak, P. (2025). How artificial intelligence can support the sustainable development of organizations? Findings from a literature review. Issues in Information Systems , 26(1), 296 –307. https://doi.org/10.48009/1_iis_122

Qadeer, A., & Hussain, W. (2025). Fostering innovations: The mediating role of knowledge sharing in organizational growth. In Knowledge Sharing and Fostering Collaborative Business Culture (pp. 397 –412). https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0710-7.ch021

Rad, H. F., Shahi, S., & Fazeli, A. (2021). The role of transformational leadership and knowledge management in organizational innovation of schools. Education and Self Development , 16(1), 40 –53. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd16.1.05

Radomir, L. , Ciornea, R. , Wang, H. , Liu, Y. , Ringle, C. M. , & Sarstedt, M. (2023). State of the Art in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): Methodological Extensions and Applications in the Social Sciences and Beyond. Cham: Springer.

Rahim, R. A., Ong, M. H. A., Wahab, L. N. A., & Anwar, N. (2023). Knowledge Management Strategies and Green Innovation Practices: Empirical Evidence from the Malaysian Public Sector. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Production Research , 34(2), 1 –11. https://doi.org/10.22068/ijiepr.34.2.9

Rolls, L. (2026). Practitioner’s Response to Manifesto 7: Educating Differently about Sustainability. In Thriving Sustainably on Planet Earth: Inspiring Innovation in Childrens Education (pp. 198 –208). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009309042.016

Rosliani, E., Muhafidin, D., Rusli, B., & Sumaryana, A. (2025). Contextualizing Triple Bottom Line Sustainability Assessment in Secondary Education: A Rapid Appraisal from the Global South. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 17(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146621

Santosa, E., Sijabat, R., & Achmadi, H. (2025). Analysis of human capital as moderating role on the strategic orientation, operational resilience, and innovation capability to organizational longevity mediated by innovation performance. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology , 9(3), 459 – 470. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i3.5233

Sayehvand, Z., Alami, F., & SalimiNamin, S. (2025). Exploring actions of teacherpreneurs in education: insights from a qualitative study. Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2022-0321

Serpa, S., Sá, M. J., & Ferreira, C. M. (2020). Organizational learning culture in effective improvement of educational organizations. International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership , 27(1), 47 –68. https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-1656/CGP/v27i01/47-68

Shatat, Z. Y. (2026). Leadership Styles of Multicultural For - Profit Schools: A Transformation Leadership Style. In Human-AI Leadership for Transforming Schools (pp. 1 –27). https://doi.org/10.4018/979 -8- 2600-0388-6.ch001

Shehzad, M. U., Zhang, J., Alam, S., & Cao, Z. (2022). Determining the role of sources of knowledge and IT resources for stimulating firm innovation capability: a PLS -SEM approach. Business Process Management Journal, 28(4), 905 –935. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ -09-2021- 0574

Sumarmi, S. (2025). Organizational Learning in Society 5.0 Transformation. In Organisational Learning and Sustainability: Advancing Knowledge for a Sustainable Future (pp. 182 –209). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003581918-10

Tran, D., & O’Connor, B. R. (2024). Teacher curriculum competence: how teachers act in curriculum making. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 56(1), 1 –16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2271541

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice , 23(1), 6 –24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203770

Ureta, T., Higuera, S., Galvez, D., Santander, P., Delgado, L., & Lopez, B. (2025). Proposal for a Management Indicator of the Capability of Organizations for the Development of Sustainable Innovations. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics , 541 –549. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -3- 031-72490-9_54 Vičič Krabonja, M., Kustec, S., Skrbinjek, V., Aberšek, B., & Flogie, A. (2024). Innovative Professional Learning Communities and Sustainable Education Practices through Digital Transformation. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 16(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146250

Viterouli, M., Belias, D., Koustelios, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2024). Optimizing Adaptive Performance: Exploring Organizational Learning Culture across Generations. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management , 15(4), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.47297/wspchrmWSP2040 - 800501.20241504

Vos, M., Petter -Mikx, E., & Collou, L. (2025). Development and validation of the learning culture scale for small - and medium-sized enterprises. Learning Organization, 32(7), 74 –93. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO -09-2024- 0279

Wan, P. K., Holtskog, H., Huang, L., & Nowostawski, M. (2024). Blockchain as a Driver of Vertical and Horizontal Information Sharing for Sustainable Innovations. In Blockchain as a Technology for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 11–25). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003260905-2

Wibowo, M. A. (2022). The Approach of Social Innovation Agility: A Dynamic Capability Strategy. Quality - Access to Success , 23(188), 1 –8. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/23.188.01

Wibowo, R. A., Wardoyo, D. T. W., Nuswantara, D. A., & Puspitawati, L. (2026). Driving business sustainability through leadership, knowledge, and commitment: the mediating role of innovation culture in an emerging economy. Cogent Business and Management , 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2672179

Witthöft, J., Aydin, B., & Pietsch, M. (2025). Not invented here, not shared here: How school leaders’ attitudes towards external knowledge affect collaborative innovation and collective teacher innovativeness in Germany. Educational Management Administration and Leadership . https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251346950

Wongmahesak, K., Wongsuwan, N., Akkaya, B., & Palazzo, M. (2025). Impact of Knowledge Management Process on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation. Knowledge and Process Management, 32(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1795

Wu, D., Li, Z., & Su, J. (2024). Multi-criteria evaluation of knowledge sharing level of university teachers based on improved AHP -CRITIC. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering , 24(4–5), 2503 – 2516. https://doi.org/10.3233/JCM-247475

Wu, H., Li, S., Zhang, X., & Hou, W. (2025). Achieving Sustainable Innovation: A Fit Model of Digital Platforms and Absorptive Capacity. Sustainability (Switzerland), 17(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198611

Yao, M., & Xu, Y. (2024). Method Bias Mechanisms and Procedural Remedies. Sociological Methods and Research , 53(1), 235 –278. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211043141

Yaqin, L. N., Prasojo, L. D., Haji -Othman, N. A., Yusof, N., & Habibi, A. (2023). Addressing the Digital Divide in Indonesian Higher Education: Insights, Implications, and Potential Solutions. In Lecture Notes in Educational Technology: Part F2266 (pp. 291 –307). https://doi.org/10.1007/978 - 981-99-7645-4_13

Zeinabadi, H. (2022). Principals’ role in teachers’ knowledge -sharing beliefs, intention and behaviour in Iranian schools: exploring the impact of knowledge-sharing leadership. Journal of Educational Administration , 60(5), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2021-0168

Zhang, W. (2022). The Relationship between Authentic Leadership and Teacher Knowledge Sharing in China: The Mediating Role of Teachers’ Social - Emotional Competence. Beijing International Review of Education , 4(1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-bja10011

Zhang, W., Bowers, A. J., & Pang, S. (2025). Promoting teacher knowledge sharing in China: The fostering roles of authentic leadership, reciprocity norms, and organizational trust. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 53(4), 789 –806. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231199573