Page 280 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 280
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
Hypothesis 1a, which postulates a significant and positive effect of
the command-and-control instrument on eco-innovations, has been sup-
ported for product, process and organizational eco-innovation and also
for the eco-innovation construct, which measured eco-innovation as a
second-order latent factor composed of product, process and organiza-
tional eco-innovation. Our findings are in line with prior research works
(Noci and Verganti 1999; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Kam-
merer 2009; Lin et al. 2013b; Triguero et al. 2013), which found regu-
lations to be a driver of product eco-innovation. Furthermore, numer-
ous studies also found support for the claim that regulations motivate
companies to adopt process eco-innovation (Cleff and Rennings 1999;
Wagner 2009; Agan et al. 2013; Lin et al. 2013b) and spur organization-
al eco-innovation adoption (Triguero et al. 2013). Moreover, our re-
280 sults are in line with many research works that have found regulations
to incite eco-innovation adoption/implementation (Cleff and Rennings
1999; Hall 2000; Blum-Kusterer and Salman Hussain 2001; Mazzanti
and Zoboli 2006; Horbach 2008; Chappin et al. 2009; Lewis and Cas-
sells 2010; Qi et al. 2010; Belin et al. 2011; Popp et al. 2011; Weng and
Lin 2011; Yalabik and Fairchild 2011; Blind 2012; Doran and Ryan 2012;
Dong et al. 2013; Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Chassagnon
and Haned 2014; Doran and Ryan 2014; Ford et al. 2014; Li 2014). An
interesting finding from our results is that the standardized coefficient
was greatest for the causal relationship between the command-and-con-
trol instrument and process eco-innovation, while it was lowest for the
association between the command-and-control instrument and organi-
zational eco-innovation. Based on our results, we can conclude that the
command-and-control instrument drives process eco-innovation to the
greatest extent (standardized coefficient 0.22), followed by the eco-inno-
vation construct (standardized coefficient 0.18), product eco-innovation
(standardized coefficient 0.15) and, lastly, organizational eco-innovation
(standardized coefficient 0.11). It seems that the command-and-con-
trol instrument incites the most process eco-innovation, while it exerts
a smaller effect on the other eco-innovation types (remaining high, posi-
tive and significant). In sum, the command-and-control instrument is an
effective driver of all eco-innovation types, but only its relative strength
varies depending on the eco-innovation type.
Hypothesis 1b, which relates to the relationship between the eco-
nomic incentive instrument and different types of eco-innovations, also
turned out to be supported for all three eco-innovation types (product,
process and organizational eco-innovation) and the eco-innovation con-
Hypothesis 1a, which postulates a significant and positive effect of
the command-and-control instrument on eco-innovations, has been sup-
ported for product, process and organizational eco-innovation and also
for the eco-innovation construct, which measured eco-innovation as a
second-order latent factor composed of product, process and organiza-
tional eco-innovation. Our findings are in line with prior research works
(Noci and Verganti 1999; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Kam-
merer 2009; Lin et al. 2013b; Triguero et al. 2013), which found regu-
lations to be a driver of product eco-innovation. Furthermore, numer-
ous studies also found support for the claim that regulations motivate
companies to adopt process eco-innovation (Cleff and Rennings 1999;
Wagner 2009; Agan et al. 2013; Lin et al. 2013b) and spur organization-
al eco-innovation adoption (Triguero et al. 2013). Moreover, our re-
280 sults are in line with many research works that have found regulations
to incite eco-innovation adoption/implementation (Cleff and Rennings
1999; Hall 2000; Blum-Kusterer and Salman Hussain 2001; Mazzanti
and Zoboli 2006; Horbach 2008; Chappin et al. 2009; Lewis and Cas-
sells 2010; Qi et al. 2010; Belin et al. 2011; Popp et al. 2011; Weng and
Lin 2011; Yalabik and Fairchild 2011; Blind 2012; Doran and Ryan 2012;
Dong et al. 2013; Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Chassagnon
and Haned 2014; Doran and Ryan 2014; Ford et al. 2014; Li 2014). An
interesting finding from our results is that the standardized coefficient
was greatest for the causal relationship between the command-and-con-
trol instrument and process eco-innovation, while it was lowest for the
association between the command-and-control instrument and organi-
zational eco-innovation. Based on our results, we can conclude that the
command-and-control instrument drives process eco-innovation to the
greatest extent (standardized coefficient 0.22), followed by the eco-inno-
vation construct (standardized coefficient 0.18), product eco-innovation
(standardized coefficient 0.15) and, lastly, organizational eco-innovation
(standardized coefficient 0.11). It seems that the command-and-con-
trol instrument incites the most process eco-innovation, while it exerts
a smaller effect on the other eco-innovation types (remaining high, posi-
tive and significant). In sum, the command-and-control instrument is an
effective driver of all eco-innovation types, but only its relative strength
varies depending on the eco-innovation type.
Hypothesis 1b, which relates to the relationship between the eco-
nomic incentive instrument and different types of eco-innovations, also
turned out to be supported for all three eco-innovation types (product,
process and organizational eco-innovation) and the eco-innovation con-
