Page 284 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 284
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
entiation (Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Lewis and Cassells 2010;
York and Venkataraman 2010; Cuerva et al. 2013).
We have not tested Hypothesis 5a related to competitive intensity,
because the variance that this construct explained was too low. Instead,
we examined the Hypothesis 5b, which predicts a significant and positive
influence of competitive pressure on eco-innovation. This hypothesis re-
ceived strong support in all four models (product eco-innovation, process
eco-innovation, organizational eco-innovation and the eco-innovation
construct). In more detail, competitive pressure exerted the greatest im-
pact on the eco-innovation construct and organizational eco-innovation
(both had standardized coefficients estimated at 0.64), followed by prod-
uct eco-innovation (standardized coefficient 0.44) and process eco-inno-
vation (standardized coefficient 0.40). Again, all relationships were high,
284 positive and significant, which is consistent with past research works (Le
et al. 2006; Kemp and Pearson 2007; Yalabik and Fairchild 2011; Zeng et
al. 2011; Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Li 2014).
Hypothesis 6a predicted a positive and significant relationship be-
tween company growth and eco-innovations. However, our study pro-
duced no empirical evidence to support this relationship. Rather, neg-
ative and significant relationships were found for all four models of
eco-innovation. These results are not surprising, because past researchers
received mixed results when testing the relationship between eco-inno-
vations and company growth. Likewise, we predicted positive and signif-
icant relationships between eco-innovations and company profitability
and again found mixed support. Empirical evidence of our study gives
support to causal relationships between process eco-innovation, organ-
izational eco-innovation and the eco-innovation construct and compa-
ny profitability, which is consistent with past research works (Rao and
Holt 2005; Clemens 2006; Montabon et al. 2007; Eiadat et al. 2008; Mo-
lina-Azorín et al. 2009; Huang and Wu 2010; Zeng et al. 2011; Ar 2012;
Cheng and Shiu 2012; Cheng et al. 2013; De Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013;
Leonidou et al. 2013a). Meanwhile, a significant and negative relation-
ship (standardized coefficient close to zero) was found between product
eco-innovation and company profitability; therefore, more research on
this topic is required before making premature or ambiguous conclusions
related to this relationship. The support found for causal associations be-
tween organizational eco-innovation and company profitability (stand-
ardized coefficient 0.05); process eco-innovation and company profita-
bility (standardized coefficient 0.04), and eco-innovation construct and
company profitability (standardized coefficient 0.02) was positive and
entiation (Triebswetter and Wackerbauer 2008; Lewis and Cassells 2010;
York and Venkataraman 2010; Cuerva et al. 2013).
We have not tested Hypothesis 5a related to competitive intensity,
because the variance that this construct explained was too low. Instead,
we examined the Hypothesis 5b, which predicts a significant and positive
influence of competitive pressure on eco-innovation. This hypothesis re-
ceived strong support in all four models (product eco-innovation, process
eco-innovation, organizational eco-innovation and the eco-innovation
construct). In more detail, competitive pressure exerted the greatest im-
pact on the eco-innovation construct and organizational eco-innovation
(both had standardized coefficients estimated at 0.64), followed by prod-
uct eco-innovation (standardized coefficient 0.44) and process eco-inno-
vation (standardized coefficient 0.40). Again, all relationships were high,
284 positive and significant, which is consistent with past research works (Le
et al. 2006; Kemp and Pearson 2007; Yalabik and Fairchild 2011; Zeng et
al. 2011; Bocken et al. 2014; Cai and Zhou 2014; Li 2014).
Hypothesis 6a predicted a positive and significant relationship be-
tween company growth and eco-innovations. However, our study pro-
duced no empirical evidence to support this relationship. Rather, neg-
ative and significant relationships were found for all four models of
eco-innovation. These results are not surprising, because past researchers
received mixed results when testing the relationship between eco-inno-
vations and company growth. Likewise, we predicted positive and signif-
icant relationships between eco-innovations and company profitability
and again found mixed support. Empirical evidence of our study gives
support to causal relationships between process eco-innovation, organ-
izational eco-innovation and the eco-innovation construct and compa-
ny profitability, which is consistent with past research works (Rao and
Holt 2005; Clemens 2006; Montabon et al. 2007; Eiadat et al. 2008; Mo-
lina-Azorín et al. 2009; Huang and Wu 2010; Zeng et al. 2011; Ar 2012;
Cheng and Shiu 2012; Cheng et al. 2013; De Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013;
Leonidou et al. 2013a). Meanwhile, a significant and negative relation-
ship (standardized coefficient close to zero) was found between product
eco-innovation and company profitability; therefore, more research on
this topic is required before making premature or ambiguous conclusions
related to this relationship. The support found for causal associations be-
tween organizational eco-innovation and company profitability (stand-
ardized coefficient 0.05); process eco-innovation and company profita-
bility (standardized coefficient 0.04), and eco-innovation construct and
company profitability (standardized coefficient 0.02) was positive and
