Page 281 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 281
Summary of findings and discussion 281
struct. The economic incentive instrument exerted a positive, significant
and moderate influence on product eco-innovation (standardized coef-
ficient 0.12), on the eco-innovation construct (standardized coefficient
0.10), and on organizational eco-innovation (standardized coefficient
0.09), while it exerted the weakest influence (but still positive and sig-
nificant) on process eco-innovation (standardized coefficient 0.06). We
can conclude that our findings are consistent with those of prior research
works, which found support for the role of the economic incentive in-
strument on eco-innovation implementation (Chappin et al. 2009; Ol-
tra and Saint Jean 2009). Many researchers also found a positive and sig-
nificant effect of government subsidies and grants (which are part of the
economic incentive instrument) on different eco-innovation types (Yal-
abik and Fairchild 2011; Zeng et al. 2011; De Marchi 2012; Doran and
Ryan 2012).
Related to the environmental policy instruments, which we have
tested as two individual components – the command-and-control instru-
ment and the economic incentive instrument – we can conclude that the
results of our study do not offer empirical support for the superiority of
the economic incentive instrument over the command-and-control in-
strument (Rennings et al. 2006). Rather, both instruments have shown a
positive and significant association with all eco-innovation types (prod-
uct, process and organizational eco-innovation as well as the eco-innova-
tion construct). The empirical evidence indicates the slight superiority of
the command-and-control instrument over the economic incentive in-
strument in all four tested models of eco-innovation.
Concerning Hypothesis 2, which posits a positive and significant
relationship between customer demand and eco-innovations, we found
strong support for the construct-level eco-innovation model (standard-
ized coefficient 0.30), which is consistent with numerous research works
(Ziegler and Rennings 2004; Le et al. 2006; Kivimaa 2007; Horbach
2008; Lewis and Cassells 2010; Popp et al. 2011; Weng and Lin 2011;
Zeng et al. 2011; Doran and Ryan 2012; Oxborrow and Brindley 2013;
Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Chassagnon and Haned 2014;
Doran and Ryan 2014; Li 2014; Triguero et al. 2014). Furthermore, our
results offer strong empirical evidence for the relationship between cus-
tomer demand and product eco-innovation (standardized coefficient
0.29), in line with prior research (Ziegler and Rennings 2004; Rehfeld
et al. 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Horbach et al. 2012;
Lin et al. 2013a; Lin et al. 2013b; Triguero et al. 2013). Based on the re-
sults of our study, we can conclude that customer demand also drives pro-
struct. The economic incentive instrument exerted a positive, significant
and moderate influence on product eco-innovation (standardized coef-
ficient 0.12), on the eco-innovation construct (standardized coefficient
0.10), and on organizational eco-innovation (standardized coefficient
0.09), while it exerted the weakest influence (but still positive and sig-
nificant) on process eco-innovation (standardized coefficient 0.06). We
can conclude that our findings are consistent with those of prior research
works, which found support for the role of the economic incentive in-
strument on eco-innovation implementation (Chappin et al. 2009; Ol-
tra and Saint Jean 2009). Many researchers also found a positive and sig-
nificant effect of government subsidies and grants (which are part of the
economic incentive instrument) on different eco-innovation types (Yal-
abik and Fairchild 2011; Zeng et al. 2011; De Marchi 2012; Doran and
Ryan 2012).
Related to the environmental policy instruments, which we have
tested as two individual components – the command-and-control instru-
ment and the economic incentive instrument – we can conclude that the
results of our study do not offer empirical support for the superiority of
the economic incentive instrument over the command-and-control in-
strument (Rennings et al. 2006). Rather, both instruments have shown a
positive and significant association with all eco-innovation types (prod-
uct, process and organizational eco-innovation as well as the eco-innova-
tion construct). The empirical evidence indicates the slight superiority of
the command-and-control instrument over the economic incentive in-
strument in all four tested models of eco-innovation.
Concerning Hypothesis 2, which posits a positive and significant
relationship between customer demand and eco-innovations, we found
strong support for the construct-level eco-innovation model (standard-
ized coefficient 0.30), which is consistent with numerous research works
(Ziegler and Rennings 2004; Le et al. 2006; Kivimaa 2007; Horbach
2008; Lewis and Cassells 2010; Popp et al. 2011; Weng and Lin 2011;
Zeng et al. 2011; Doran and Ryan 2012; Oxborrow and Brindley 2013;
Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Chassagnon and Haned 2014;
Doran and Ryan 2014; Li 2014; Triguero et al. 2014). Furthermore, our
results offer strong empirical evidence for the relationship between cus-
tomer demand and product eco-innovation (standardized coefficient
0.29), in line with prior research (Ziegler and Rennings 2004; Rehfeld
et al. 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Horbach et al. 2012;
Lin et al. 2013a; Lin et al. 2013b; Triguero et al. 2013). Based on the re-
sults of our study, we can conclude that customer demand also drives pro-
