Page 249 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 249
Eco-innovation models 249
Hypotheses 1a and 1b examined the relationship between environ-
mental policy instruments (the command-and-control instrument, the
economic incentive instrument) and process eco-innovation, which for
both environmental policy instruments was predicted to be positive and
significant. The standardized coefficients for the relationship between
the command-and-control instrument and process eco-innovation were
in the expected direction (positive), quite high (the standardized coeffi-
cient of the command-and-control instrument was 0.22) and significant.
Support was also found for Hypothesis 1b, which posited a positive and
significant relationship between the economic incentive instrument and
process eco-innovation (the standardized coefficient was 0.06). There-
fore, the findings revealed that Hypotheses 1a and 1b are both supported,
while the command-and-control instrument seems to play a more impor-
tant role in spurring process eco-innovation than the economic incentive
instrument.
Strong support was found for Hypothesis 2, which postulated a pos-
itive and significant relationship between customer demand and process
eco-innovation. The standardized coefficient was high (0.28) and signif-
icant.
The relationship between managerial environmental concern and
process eco-innovation was found to be positive, high and significant (the
standardized coefficient was 0.23). Hypothesis 3 is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 4 postulated a positive relationship between expected
benefits and process eco-innovation. The association between expected
benefits and process eco-innovation was found to be negative and signif-
icant (standardized coefficient -0.18), which is the opposite of what we
expected. We can thus see that expected benefits do not drive compa-
nies toward implementation of process eco-innovations. It is probable
that companies expect higher investments in process eco-innovation and
tradeoff, which can be seen after several years’ lag. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is
not supported.
Hypothesis 5a (the relationship between competitive intensity and
process eco-innovation) was not tested, since the factor competitive in-
tensity explains only 36.733% of variance and was therefore excluded
from further analyses. Hypothesis 5b examined the relationship between
competitive pressure and process eco-innovation, which was expected
to be positive and significant. The standardized coefficient for this rela-
tionship is highly positive, significant and substantial (0.40), indicating
strong support for Hypothesis 5b.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b examined the relationship between environ-
mental policy instruments (the command-and-control instrument, the
economic incentive instrument) and process eco-innovation, which for
both environmental policy instruments was predicted to be positive and
significant. The standardized coefficients for the relationship between
the command-and-control instrument and process eco-innovation were
in the expected direction (positive), quite high (the standardized coeffi-
cient of the command-and-control instrument was 0.22) and significant.
Support was also found for Hypothesis 1b, which posited a positive and
significant relationship between the economic incentive instrument and
process eco-innovation (the standardized coefficient was 0.06). There-
fore, the findings revealed that Hypotheses 1a and 1b are both supported,
while the command-and-control instrument seems to play a more impor-
tant role in spurring process eco-innovation than the economic incentive
instrument.
Strong support was found for Hypothesis 2, which postulated a pos-
itive and significant relationship between customer demand and process
eco-innovation. The standardized coefficient was high (0.28) and signif-
icant.
The relationship between managerial environmental concern and
process eco-innovation was found to be positive, high and significant (the
standardized coefficient was 0.23). Hypothesis 3 is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 4 postulated a positive relationship between expected
benefits and process eco-innovation. The association between expected
benefits and process eco-innovation was found to be negative and signif-
icant (standardized coefficient -0.18), which is the opposite of what we
expected. We can thus see that expected benefits do not drive compa-
nies toward implementation of process eco-innovations. It is probable
that companies expect higher investments in process eco-innovation and
tradeoff, which can be seen after several years’ lag. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is
not supported.
Hypothesis 5a (the relationship between competitive intensity and
process eco-innovation) was not tested, since the factor competitive in-
tensity explains only 36.733% of variance and was therefore excluded
from further analyses. Hypothesis 5b examined the relationship between
competitive pressure and process eco-innovation, which was expected
to be positive and significant. The standardized coefficient for this rela-
tionship is highly positive, significant and substantial (0.40), indicating
strong support for Hypothesis 5b.
