Page 290 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 290
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
terviews with environmental managers of five Slovenian companies that
implement eco-innovations). Moreover, in this study, we identified the
drivers of different eco-innovation types (product, process and organiza-
tional eco-innovation, and the eco-innovation construct). We found that
all drivers spur eco-innovations (with the exception of excepted benefits
as a driver of process eco-innovation, where a negative relationship was
found), while competitive pressure can be considered the strongest driver
of all three eco-innovation types. Another great contribution lies in test-
ing driver environmental policy instruments as two individual compo-
nents (the command-and-control instrument and the economic incen-
tive instrument). This approach has also been adopted in prior research
(Li 2014) and has proven to be rewarding in our study, where we were
able to identify the individual influences of both instruments on differ-
290 ent eco-innovation types.
Furthermore, the contribution pertaining to the outcomes of eco-in-
novation is that we tested outcomes of eco-innovation at the firm lev-
el, meaning that we were interested in the consequences pertaining to
the company that deploys eco-innovations. Our main aim was to explore
whether eco-innovations are worthwhile for the company that adopts
them, or whether they deliver benefits only to the environment. We test-
ed the following outcomes of eco-innovation: competitive benefits, eco-
nomic benefits, company growth and profitability, and internationaliza-
tion as consequences of three eco-innovation types (product, process and
organizational eco-innovation) and eco-innovation construct. Another
important contribution in testing the consequences of eco-innovation
is that we not only identified the consequences for each eco-innovation
type but also used both self-reported (economic and competitive bene-
fits, internationalization) and objective measures (company growth and
profitability were obtained from the GVIN database). A combination of
both types of measures enabled us to derive several insights. The litera-
ture offers rather ambiguous and mixed results pertaining to the eco-in-
novation outcomes. Eco-innovation by definition is more environmen-
tally benign than relevant alternatives. The definition by itself does not
emphasize any benefits for the company that either adopts or develops
eco-innovation. However, it is known that some types of eco-innovation
may be beneficial for the companies (e.g., cleaner production resulting in
cost savings and consequently leading to higher profitability), while oth-
ers (eco-innovations that tend only to reduce the negative externalities,
such as end-of-pipeline technologies) are instead harmful to the company
performance (competitiveness and profitability). Moreover, payoff relat-
terviews with environmental managers of five Slovenian companies that
implement eco-innovations). Moreover, in this study, we identified the
drivers of different eco-innovation types (product, process and organiza-
tional eco-innovation, and the eco-innovation construct). We found that
all drivers spur eco-innovations (with the exception of excepted benefits
as a driver of process eco-innovation, where a negative relationship was
found), while competitive pressure can be considered the strongest driver
of all three eco-innovation types. Another great contribution lies in test-
ing driver environmental policy instruments as two individual compo-
nents (the command-and-control instrument and the economic incen-
tive instrument). This approach has also been adopted in prior research
(Li 2014) and has proven to be rewarding in our study, where we were
able to identify the individual influences of both instruments on differ-
290 ent eco-innovation types.
Furthermore, the contribution pertaining to the outcomes of eco-in-
novation is that we tested outcomes of eco-innovation at the firm lev-
el, meaning that we were interested in the consequences pertaining to
the company that deploys eco-innovations. Our main aim was to explore
whether eco-innovations are worthwhile for the company that adopts
them, or whether they deliver benefits only to the environment. We test-
ed the following outcomes of eco-innovation: competitive benefits, eco-
nomic benefits, company growth and profitability, and internationaliza-
tion as consequences of three eco-innovation types (product, process and
organizational eco-innovation) and eco-innovation construct. Another
important contribution in testing the consequences of eco-innovation
is that we not only identified the consequences for each eco-innovation
type but also used both self-reported (economic and competitive bene-
fits, internationalization) and objective measures (company growth and
profitability were obtained from the GVIN database). A combination of
both types of measures enabled us to derive several insights. The litera-
ture offers rather ambiguous and mixed results pertaining to the eco-in-
novation outcomes. Eco-innovation by definition is more environmen-
tally benign than relevant alternatives. The definition by itself does not
emphasize any benefits for the company that either adopts or develops
eco-innovation. However, it is known that some types of eco-innovation
may be beneficial for the companies (e.g., cleaner production resulting in
cost savings and consequently leading to higher profitability), while oth-
ers (eco-innovations that tend only to reduce the negative externalities,
such as end-of-pipeline technologies) are instead harmful to the company
performance (competitiveness and profitability). Moreover, payoff relat-
