Page 293 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 293
Conclusion 293
works are based on Chinese companies, whose eco-innovation drivers
differ from those in Slovenia), and conducted the quantitative research.
In our quantitative research, we encompassed several drivers and also fo-
cused on the outcomes (in terms of company growth and profitability, in-
ternationalization, competitive and economic benefits). The integrative
approach that we have adopted highlights the relative importance and
relevance of several eco-innovation determinants and outcomes pertain-
ing to eco-innovation implementation.
Concerning the drivers of eco-innovation with a focus on environ-
mental policy instruments, researchers generally measure them as one
construct. Following Li (2014), we have divided environmental policy in-
struments into the command-and-control instrument and the econom-
ic incentive instrument. Thus, we examined the individual effects of each
instrument on eco-innovation. This approach has turned out to be re-
warding in our research, giving more profound insights into their indi-
vidual effects on different eco-innovation types.
Moreover, when testing outcomes of eco-innovation, we employed
both objective (secondary financial data of analyzed companies gathered
from the GVIN database) and self-reported measures, instead of only one
or the other as in most previous research. This approach has proven to be
rewarding. Eco-innovation generally pays off after several years’ lag due
to the investments made, and thus the objective measures can reflect a
more negative situation than occurs in reality, leading to the conclusion
that eco-innovation is only a cost that the company must bear. The self-re-
ported measures, on the other hand, reflect the outcomes that cannot yet
be observed using the profitability indicator ratios (as the return on in-
vestments may take several years). Therefore, the financial indicators tend
to show a negative image even after companies begin to see the benefits
of implementing eco-innovation. In our case, we have seen that product,
process and organizational eco-innovation all exerted a significantly neg-
ative influence on company growth, while only process and organization-
al eco-innovation demonstrated a low but significantly positive influence
on company profitability. On the other hand, our self-reported measures
showed that companies recognized economic and competitive benefits
derived from product, process and organizational eco-innovation imple-
mentation.
Another contribution to theory and research is our exploration of
drivers and outcomes of different eco-innovation types, leading to great-
er insights and a deeper understanding of drivers and outcomes of differ-
ent eco-innovation types (product, process and organizational eco-inno-
works are based on Chinese companies, whose eco-innovation drivers
differ from those in Slovenia), and conducted the quantitative research.
In our quantitative research, we encompassed several drivers and also fo-
cused on the outcomes (in terms of company growth and profitability, in-
ternationalization, competitive and economic benefits). The integrative
approach that we have adopted highlights the relative importance and
relevance of several eco-innovation determinants and outcomes pertain-
ing to eco-innovation implementation.
Concerning the drivers of eco-innovation with a focus on environ-
mental policy instruments, researchers generally measure them as one
construct. Following Li (2014), we have divided environmental policy in-
struments into the command-and-control instrument and the econom-
ic incentive instrument. Thus, we examined the individual effects of each
instrument on eco-innovation. This approach has turned out to be re-
warding in our research, giving more profound insights into their indi-
vidual effects on different eco-innovation types.
Moreover, when testing outcomes of eco-innovation, we employed
both objective (secondary financial data of analyzed companies gathered
from the GVIN database) and self-reported measures, instead of only one
or the other as in most previous research. This approach has proven to be
rewarding. Eco-innovation generally pays off after several years’ lag due
to the investments made, and thus the objective measures can reflect a
more negative situation than occurs in reality, leading to the conclusion
that eco-innovation is only a cost that the company must bear. The self-re-
ported measures, on the other hand, reflect the outcomes that cannot yet
be observed using the profitability indicator ratios (as the return on in-
vestments may take several years). Therefore, the financial indicators tend
to show a negative image even after companies begin to see the benefits
of implementing eco-innovation. In our case, we have seen that product,
process and organizational eco-innovation all exerted a significantly neg-
ative influence on company growth, while only process and organization-
al eco-innovation demonstrated a low but significantly positive influence
on company profitability. On the other hand, our self-reported measures
showed that companies recognized economic and competitive benefits
derived from product, process and organizational eco-innovation imple-
mentation.
Another contribution to theory and research is our exploration of
drivers and outcomes of different eco-innovation types, leading to great-
er insights and a deeper understanding of drivers and outcomes of differ-
ent eco-innovation types (product, process and organizational eco-inno-
